[Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[KerryIrons]

Again Paul I don't understand what you are saying: you state "if AASHTO is
already referring to them in proposals."  AASHTO has prepared a corridor
plan.  AASHTO does not develop routes.  Route development takes place at the
state level by the DOTs, advocates, or other agencies and this is always
done in partnership with the respective DOTs.  The DOTs are the only ones
who can submit an application to AASHTO for USBR route designation so there
is no point in "proposing" a route if you are not in communication with the
DOTs or at least with the project team developing a route.

 

The OSM routes I am asking to be removed are strictly the opinion of a
now-banned OSM mapper.  That I can find this person had no communication
with local, regional, or state level advocates or government agencies.  He
took existing state bike routes and entered them into OSM as proposed USBRs
and tagged them with USBR numbers.  Does this meet your definition of a
"proposed" route Paul?

 

I am not familiar with the details of all the options for placing a route in
OSM but I don't see how you can put a route into OSM without choosing
specific roads.  And just for reference, neither the OpenCycleMap key nor
the OpenStreetMap key shows the meaning of the dashed line as "proposed" so
there is no way for the general public to know that these routes are in
OSM/OCM as proposed.

 

It would be great if OSM mappers would communicate with state project teams
when an actual route development project is underway so that any map they
generate would be in synch with the project.  I would suggest that OSM
mappers contact Adventure Cycling and we can put them in contact with
project teams.  Otherwise the OSM mapping looks more like "advocacy mapping"
where an individual mapper is putting out their ideas of a USBR route, not
connected with actual efforts to develop and designate a USBR.

 

 

Kerry Irons

Adventure Cycling

 

 

From: Paul Johnson [mailto:baloo at ursamundi.org] 
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 9:20 PM
To: KerryIrons
Cc: OpenStreetMap talk-us list; Andy Allen
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

 

 

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

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?


I strongly disagree that there's anything remotely resembling a consensus.
But if it's proposed, it should be in there.  And if AASHTO is already
referring to them in proposals, I'm not sure I understand the opposition to
keeping them there except that the renderer is displaying such routes too
specifically.  Am I missing something here?  I don't see a reason to remove
what, by all accounts, appears to be active proposals already using the
numbers, from OSM when they're already tagged appropriately.  So what I'm
saying is, how can we resolve this that doesn't involve removing factual (if
only on paper) data?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20130607/9932fb7a/attachment-0001.html>