[Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[KerryIrons]

So Paul, what you really want is advocacy mapping.  Not mapping reality but
mapping what you want to have.  It comes as a great surprise to me that this
is what OSM is all about.  Do you think this is the consensus of the OSM
community?  I thought OSM's goal was to "accurately describe the world" but
you are saying it is also advocacy.

 

As far as "compelling reason to remove them" let's try this: There are no
proposed routes for USBR 21, 25, 80, or 84 in these states.  The only
"proposed" routes are the opinion of one OSM mapper who is now banned.  No
state, regional, or local bicycle advocacy group or governmental agency is
working on any of these routes.  Is it your opinion that any OSM mapper
can/should propose routes for the US Bicycle Route System free of
consultation or communication with any other party?

 

You said before that "I strongly disagree that there's anything remotely
resembling a consensus" on removing these from OSM.  I think what you really
meant was that you strongly disagree with the consensus.  You are the only
one arguing to keep them in the system.  Here're just some of the comments
from OSM members:

 

===========================================

Greg Troxel said: "We shouldn't be doing original research in determining
things, but rather documenting things that exist.  If there are signs and a
published route, that's obviously a route.  If an organization that is
generally viewed as having the authority to determine a route has published
a proposal (which is stronger than 6 what-if scenarios), then that's fair to
be in as proposed.  But as I understand the situation, a cognizant
organization has published a target corridor, not a proposed route."

 

Nathan Mills said "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.

 

Andy Allen said: "over-enthusiastic mappers are making up their own
proposals directly into OSM."  And "they should only be proposed by an
organization that has relevant authority to create a route, usually this is
clear for a given country."

 

Alex Barth said: "I would propose to remove them then." And "If that's the
situation it seems we have a clear cut case at hand: the routes in question
just aren't `proposed`."

 

Richard Welty said "if the route doesn't exist yet as a firm line on the
map, it has no business being in the core OSM database.

===========================================

 

Paul, show me the comments (besides yours) that support keeping these routes
in OSM.

 

 

Kerry Irons

Adventure Cycling Association

 

From: Paul Johnson [mailto:baloo at ursamundi.org] 
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 12:45 PM
To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

 

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:52 PM, KerryIrons <irons54vortex at sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

It sounds like you want to add a feature to OSM/OCM so that the corridors
can be shown.  From a mapping standpoint, I don't see what this accomplishes
since the AASHTO map was created at the "50,000 foot level" and putting
corridors on OSM/OCM simply supplies that level of fuzziness to another map.

 

It also provides for better, more precise visualization of what's in that
corridor, which would be an important advocacy tool.

 

It seems like you are going to resist removing these routes at any turn.


I've yet to hear a compelling reason to remove them.  I'd love to hear it if
you have it, but "it makes your life harder" or "the renderer doesn't show
it right" really doesn't qualify.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20130608/90aaf66c/attachment-0001.html>