[Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:35 PM, KerryIrons <irons54vortex at sbcglobal.net>wrote:

> 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.
>
[moved a paragraph to better frame my response]


> 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.


[and again]


> 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.


I don't think we disagree for when proposals get past their infancy.  Where
we do seem to have a disconnect is on corridor proposals, where it hasn't
narrowed down beyond a broad corridor. This still sounds like a rendering
issue, not a tagging issue, since the center of the corridor is presumably
close to or congruent with the routes tagged in this case.  In which I
would really prefer this be addressed as a rendering issue.  I believe
that's the reasonable compromise, to highlight a margin-of-error area
defined by another tag (perhaps "corridor_width=*" or something similar).
 The way I understand it, the crux of the problem you're pointing out with
the situation is that the route relations in network=ncn state=proposed are
too specific.  So, let's address the margin of error issue.  How can we
resolve this amicably so such proposals can be mapped?


> 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?
>

Now, anybody who has been following the situation with NE2 for the last
couple years is probably going to be picking up their jaws when I say this,
but I don't think he was operating entirely in a vacuum, based on the
publicly available information about these proposed corridors in the areas
I follow (since bicycle tagging is something I do try to help keep straight
in the areas I follow, odds are I would have been one of the first to raise
a red flag).  Not every edit needs to come to a consensus, but disputes do
need to come to something reasonably close to a consensus.  In my view,
this would be one such dispute, and I'd rather not see the solution be
"let's tag for the renderer."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20130607/c93379f4/attachment.html>