[Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Thu Jun 6 15:16:04 UTC 2013


On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:49 AM, KerryIrons <irons54vortex at sbcglobal.net>wrote:

> Actually Paul, people have disagreed.  There are those who have taken the
> position in this exchange that "Who does AASHTO think they are?"  I and
> others have tried to clarify that.
>
Then I have to wonder why ACA is playing both sides of this coin, by
proposing these numbers, then trying to censor them when other people come
across proposals.

> The fact that local jurisdictions are confused and distracted by the
> meaning of "proposed" means that we can reduce confusion by not tagging
> proposed routes with USBR numbers.  It sounds like you want to blame those
> who are confused rather than help reduce the confusion.  If we know from
> experience how best to approach local jurisdictions for their approval, why
> would we engage in behavior that makes more work in that process?
>
Maybe it's not the best approach, since ultimately you're trying to get the
proposals retagged for one specific renderer.  Rather than removing
information that is useful for people working on the map or trying to
follow these proposals, we need another tag that hints to renderers some
sort of margin of error for proposed routes.  Hopefully Andy Allen could
chime in since he's maintaining the OpenCycleMap renderer.

> **
>
> **Adventure Cycling does not seek to monopolize the process, and there
> are a number of states that have proceeded in gaining USBR designation on
> their own.  However they do come to Adventure Cycling for advice since few
> states can claim to be ‘experienced” in the process.  I got involved in
> this because a state group came to me and asked what was going on with a
> bunch of USBRs tagged in their state on OSM about which they knew nothing.
> That does not reflect “a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘proposed’ on
> exclusively [my] part.”
>
> **
>
> ** **
>
> You seem to think this sort of thing is just fine, but it creates
> headaches and extra work.  Why you think it is OK that OSM would stimulate
> those headaches and extra work is confusing to me.
>
We're ultimately on the same page here, but we're coming at this from
differing approaches, and I can't help but to think the ACA's trying to
have it both ways when it comes to proposed routes, particularly those
still in the early stages.

> *I* don’t know what you are referencing regarding Oregon.  At this time
> Oregon has stated that their priorities lie with creating their own state
> routes rather than with the USBRS.  We think we have a good working
> relationship with Oregon but you appear to have inside information.  Please
> contact me off-list if you’re willing to share.
>
My experience with the two ODOTs I've been in contact with:

Both Oregon and Oklahoma are open to the idea of USBRs.

It's been a while since I've worked with Oregon but my impression from them
is that they've found their ACA interactions to be along the lines of the
ACA delivering edicts without providing any assistance for securing federal
funding for installing and maintaining these routes (even for no-brainer,
shovel-done, just-install-the-signs projects like the USBR 97 concurrency
with the entire length of the Oregon Coast Bike Route).  Oregon seems to
have felt left out of the design process, since the USBR trailblazers are
confusingly similar to Oregon State Route shields.  They want to get it
done, but need help, not just told what to do.  They're already on board so
quit selling; it's time to deliver on getting the money to make it happen,
and Oregon's feeling the burn on that.

Oklahoma is positive to the idea, having just initiated it's first state
bike route which is almost certainly 100% concurrent with USBR 66, but
isn't sure how to get it off the ground (it's been official since last
November for the length of Historic US 66 in Oklahoma except where State
Highway 66 still extends, it takes that instead, except on segments where
it takes a road with minimum speeds in which it's just unclear where it's
ultimately going to land even now that it's official).  This could probably
be salvaged, but getting more than just the ACA involved and perhaps
getting some transportation planning trade groups *in Oklahoma* would be a
good start.  Oklahoma's already sold on the tourism aspect and wants to
make it happen.

Ultimately, it feels like ACA bit off a little too much to do on their own,
and really needs to get involved with more groups to encourage the
dialogue, not snuff it out and keep it to themselves.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20130606/71c9f7a8/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list