[Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

Thu Jun 6 20:27:32 UTC 2013

On topic, it seems silly to map (in OSM; obviously maps of such corridors are useful in their own right) a proposed route that is nothing more than a 50 mile wide corridor in which a route may eventually be routed, prospective USBR number or no.

Ian Dees <ian.dees at gmail.com> wrote:

>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
>>
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/d6c2cef3/attachment-0001.html>