[Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[Paul Johnson]

See, that's the crux of the thing, though...  firstly, be aware that NE2
was banned because he was pushing his agenda against the wishes of the
community, and taking things off-list where things couldn't be discussed
with the community, so you're just as guilty as he is right now with that
request.


On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:32 AM, KerryIrons <irons54vortex at sbcglobal.net>wrote:

> Yes, these routes have been labeled with USBR numbers.  This is the issue I
> raised back in March and the only issue of concern.  I asked the person who
> did the labeling to remove the labels and he did not.  I find subsequently
> that he has been banned.  Steve All of California has agreed to help in
> removing those tags.  Others who are interested in this issue can contact
> me
> off-list.
>
>
> Kerry Irons
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Nelson [mailto:nelson at crynwr.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 10:17 AM
> To: KerryIrons
> Cc: 'Greg Troxel'; 'Frederik Ramm'; talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
>
> Are these bicycle routes being labeled USBR-## ? If they're not, I don't
> see
> the problem. If they are being labeleed USBR-## incorrectly, well, that's
> incorrect. I haven't read in detail every message on this thread -- are
> there example USBR bicycle routes in OSM that we could look at?
>
> KerryIrons writes:
>  > Again, a number of points of clarification are needed.
>  >
>  > First, there is a single body in the US for assigning numbers to US
> Bicycle  > Routes.  AASHTO owns the process, just as they do for all
> federal
> highways  > in the US.  There can be any number of state and local bicycle
> routes,  > proposed or implemented, but those are not USBRs until AASHTO
> approves  > designation.
>  >
>  > The process for doing this can vary but it culminates with a state  >
> department of transportation submitting an application to AASHTO to approve
> > proposed numbering.  Once AASHTO approves (they have never declined an  >
> application) the route is officially a USBR.  While AASHTO encourages  >
> signing of USBRs there is no signing requirement so a route can exist "on
>  >
> paper" (and on the Internet) but not have any signs posted.  When a project
> > is initiated to get a section of a USBR approved within a state, the
> first
> > step is to define a proposed route, but there can be many revisions to
> that  > route as it gains local jurisdiction approvals (required) for each
> route  > section.  There is no problem with showing these proposed routes
> on
> OSM but  > tagging them with USBR numbers can create significant work for
> the approval  > process team due to "ruffled feathers" at the local
> jurisdiction level.
>  >
>  > You can look at the USBR corridor plan at  >
>
> www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-route-system/national-co
>  > rridor-plan/  The corridors are roughly 50 mile wide area in which a
> route  > could be defined.  Just because a corridor exists does not mean
> that any  > specific road/street/trail has been defined as part of the
> route.  On the  > corridor map, a solid dark line means the route is
> approved by AASHTO, a  > shadowed and colored line means that the corridor
> exists but no route is  > defined, and a grey line means that a corridor
> could be added along that  > path.  A corridor is a concept for future
> development of a route.  It is not  > a route.
>  >
>  > It should be noted that there is a lot of history to the USBRS that
> explains  > the heretofore slow pace of route implementation.  It is
> inaccurate and  > unfair to blame any one organization for that slow pace.
> As of now there  > are 5,600 miles of designated routes and many more are
> being developed.
>  >
>  > As to whether the concerns I have raised are a mountain or a molehill, I
> > would simply say that those who want to ignore the political realities of
> > getting a route approved need to walk a mile in the shoes of those doing
> the  > actual work.  Spending hours explaining why a route is not going
> through a  > given community, even though there is a map somewhere showing
> that it does,  > is not seen by a project team as a good use of their time.
> Spending hours  > trying to convince a community to accept a route when
> they
> feel it is being  > shoved down their throat because it appeared on a map
> before they ever heard  > about it is not a good way to spend time either.
>  >
>  > My only goal here is to keep the OSM efforts in synch with the efforts
> of
> > various USBR project teams across the US.  There is no point in creating
> > extra work for the project teams or for OSM mappers.
>  >
>  >
>  > Kerry Irons
>  > Adventure Cycling Association
>  >
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: Greg Troxel [mailto:gdt at ir.bbn.com]  > Sent: Wednesday, June 05,
> 2013 7:02 PM  > To: Frederik Ramm  > Cc: talk-us at openstreetmap.org  >
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags  >  >  > Frederik
> Ramm
> <frederik at remote.org> writes:
>  >
>  > > An argument *against* having proposed routes is the verifiability - we
> > > usually try to have data where someone on the ground could easily  > >
> check the correctness by looking at signs. Since proposed routes are  > >
> unlikely to be signposted, having them in OSM is questionable.
>  >
>  > I see verifiability as having a broader sense.  In the case of
> officially
> > proposed USBR routes, someone who is local can look up the government  >
> documents, meeting minutes, or whatever and determine if the route
> numbering
> > authority has in fact put the route into proposed status.  That's  >
> essentially what Kerry is talking about.  That's beyond looking at signs,
>  >
> but some things on the map aren't obvious from standing near them -
> official
> > names are a complicated mix of signs on the ground, meeting minutes from
> > naming authorities, 911 or tax databases, etc.  To me, the point is that
> one  > can determine an answer by observing evidence, and reasonable people
> can  > discuss the total evidence and come to rough consensus.
>  >
>  > > On the other hand, I take exception at the original poster's apparent
> > > insistence on "routes approved by AASHTO". Whether or not a certain  >
> >
> route has been approved by a certain third organisation is not usually  > >
> something that OSM would care about. The usual OSM approach would be  >  >
> I
> don't see that at all. For a US highway, there is some part of the federal
> > bureaucracy that assigns highway numbers.  A road is a US highway if it's
> > officially been designated, and the signs are expected to keep up with
> that  > offiical designation.  If there's a case where a road has been
> designated as  > a US highway, and the locals know it, but there are no
> signs (Because  > they've been stolen, or because there was no budget to
> put
> them up, or the  > sign people are on strike, or they've all been knocked
> down in winter car  > accidents, or whatever), then it's still proper to
> tag
> it as a US highway.
>  >
>  > > that if a route is signposted, then it can be mapped - if not, then  >
> > not.
>  >
>  > I do agree that tagging a highway because one wishes that it were
> otherwise  > is bogus.  But as long as a local mapper is determing a form
> of
> reality by  > relatively objective means, I don't see a problem.
>  >
>  > > An AASHTO approved route that is not signposted would not normally be
> > > mapped;  >  > I think there may be a bit of terminology confusion:
> Kerry
> seems to mean  > "approved" as "approved by the numbering authority as a
> proposed route which  > has not yet been constructed/signed".  That's
> similar to "the government has  > decided to extend I-101 on these 10
> miles,
> but hasn't built it yet".  So  > either it's ok to show it, or we should
> remove all highway=proposed.  But I  > think it's useful to have
> highway=proposed, so that those who want can  > render it.
>  highway=proposed
> is still subject to crowdsourcing editing and  > quality control, and
> should
> mean that the cognizant naming authority has  > published a specific plan.
>  >
>  > I think this is the crux of Kerry's point - proposed cycle routes only
> make  > sense if the authority that controls the relevant ref namespace has
> actually  > proposed them.  So even from your verfiability concern
> viewpoint, I think if  > people did as Kerry asked, there would be far
> fewer
> proposed routes in the  > db, and all of them would be widely recognized as
> legitimately and actually  > proposed.
>  >
>  > > and a signposted route that is not approved by AASHTO has every right
> > > to be mapped.
>  >
>  > This is similar to what would happen if someone put up "US 99" signs on
> > their little side street, just because they were in the mood and had
> signs
> > and a hammer and nails.  That doesn't make it US 99 -- it's just simple
>  >
> vandalism -- , if other evidence says it's not true.  This is really the  >
> same situation.
>  >
>  > Now if the guerilla route is not in an official namespace, and the signs
> > persist, then I have no issue with it being mapped.
>  >
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > Talk-us mailing list
>  > Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>  > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20130606/0fed81ba/attachment.html>