[Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[KerryIrons]

Paul I don't understand what you are saying.  You keep referring to "have it
both ways" and "playing both sides of this coin."  It appears to be
insinuating some sort of duplicitousness or nefarious behavior on the part
of Adventure Cycling.

 

Adventure Cycling did not propose the USBR route numbers.  The route
numbering system and the corridor plan came from AASHTO.  We had
representation on the AASHTO Task Force but were only one of many members on
that group.  You say that trying to provide a clear message to local
jurisdictions constitutes censorship.  Based on most of the comments I have
seen the OSM community has agreed that bicycle routes should not be tagged
as USBRs if they are not USBRs.  Do you disagree with that consensus?

 

There is no federal funding for signing USBRs and there never has been.
Blaming Adventure Cycling for not securing funding that does not exist seems
unfair.  We (and many other national level advocates) did manage to get
language inserted into a draft Transportation Bill but then the 2010
election happened and federal funds for bicycling were cut significantly.

 

The MUTCD is not the jurisdiction of Adventure Cycling, and they are the
ones who came up with the new USBR sign.  All the state DOTs are part of
AASHTO and have the ability to comment on new sign designs.  There is often
tension between states and national level sign design specifications, but
Adventure Cycling played a minimal role in the new M1-9 sign design.  You
appear to blame Adventure Cycling for something in which we have no control.

 

We are working closely with the Oklahoma Bicycling Coalition in trying to
get USBR 66 approved, as we are with New Mexico, Arizona, California,
Missouri, and Illinois.  We've had numerous conference calls and provided
extensive information to OK (DOT and state level advocates) and have a good
relationship with them.  You seem to believe otherwise.

 

Do you believe that putting maps in the public domain that represent the
views and desires of individual mappers is a better approach to implementing
USBRs than working with the ongoing project teams in the individual states?
This appears to be your message.  Adventure Cycling is trying to coordinate
with those state level teams and you seem to view this as a power grab.

 

 

Kerry Irons

 

From: Paul Johnson [mailto:baloo at ursamundi.org] 
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 11:16 AM
To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list; Andy Allen
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

 

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/20130606/0540a86e/attachment.html>