[Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

Thu Jun 6 20:03:30 UTC 2013

Let's bring this thread back on topic please.

This isn't a cycle route ownership discussion list, this is an OSM
community in the US discussion list.

Further off-topic posts to this thread will result in moderation.

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:37 PM, KerryIrons <irons54vortex at sbcglobal.net>wrote:

> 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.****
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130606/0dfa14d1/attachment-0001.html>