[Talk-us] USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers
steveaOSM at softworkers.com
Sat May 31 22:43:13 UTC 2014
Frederick: I very much appreciate the time the DWG took to offer me
friendly advice. My understanding was that advice was about putting
PROPOSED routes (USBRs) into OSM, and I was VERY careful to NOT do
that with my recent request. These are ACTUAL routes which are
approved by AASHTO, which essentially equates them with USA
Interstate Highways, a "highest class" object in OSM. They do not
have signs on them because they were approved/announced YESTERDAY!
The "ribbons have just been cut."
I do my utmost to tread lightly as I continue this discussion, as I
don't want to be blocked, banned, nor see further development of
USBRs into OSM diminished. (You'll note that no new proposed USBRs
have been added since the DWG decision, showing my respect for you,
Serge, the DWG and its decision). However, I do wish to defend my
position as being blind-sided here, as you actually did "change the
rules mid-stream" on me (us, all of OSM) by making changes to the
"Proposed" wiki page. Nevertheless, that is not the issue here.
It seems to me we already have "community buy-in:" not only has the
process of USBRs been going on for years, but it was I who untangled
the NE2 mess before he was banned, and I recently spoke about how
careful and conservative was the approach we took for the better part
of all of 2013 and early 2014. There has appeared to me and many
others virtually nothing but accolades and thanks for getting this
done and putting the USBRS into OSM. It really does seem as
important as Interstate highways, but for bicyclists.
As I read Serge's suggestion that "this is an import and should be
following the import guidelines" I am now reading the Import
Guidelines and discover that I have already followed many of the
steps in there: out of the five steps, 1) Prerequisites and 2)
Community Buy-in, and a substantial portion of 3) Documentation have
already been followed. Even most of step 5) Uploading has been
followed. It appears that what is substantially lacking on my part
(should we agree that "this is an import" and Import Guidelines MUST
be followed) is step 4) Import Review. I am certainly ready, willing
and able to complete these steps. Perhaps I should even apologize
for not doing so. Because I did not characterize this (in my mind)
as "an import," that is my only excuse. But as I have now been told
it is (it is?) I do hereby apologize for not following Guidelines.
As for the wider discussion about "not verifiable on the ground"
(USBRs are "verifiable" but not always "verifiable ON THE GROUND"
because they may or may not be signed). In the USA, there are
THOUSANDS of county roads which are also unsigned, but because a
county Public Works Department or state DOT authority SAYS they exist
with a particular name and/or number, they are widely known by the
public as such. Hence, not only OUGHT they be in OpenSTREETMap
(STREET is our middle name!) THEY ARE in OSM! Would it be correct to
delete these thousands of roads simply because they are poorly-signed
or unsigned? What about the miles and miles of Interstate highway
concrete that roll by without a red-white-and-blue Interstate shield?
Should relation members where there is no sign be removed from OSM's
Interstate relations? I think not. The threat of massive data like
this disappearing in OSM should make all of us think twice about a
strict requirement of "on the ground verifiability."
We also made a similar "exception" for boundaries/borders: these are
not verifiable "on the ground" but we still do allow them in our map,
as in today's world of this-country, that-state and county-whatever,
the map would be much less useful without them. For what it is
worth, I feel the same way about (actual) USBRs.
I agree with you that proposals can get messy and ambiguous and so I
have toned down the volume on new ones to zero. We reached an
understanding about those, and that understanding includes agreement.
I did not think that my solicitation for volunteers (of ACTUAL routes
only, not proposed ones) would have results like this -- I didn't
wish to "tug on Superman's cape" if I thought it would. And I
certainly do not wish any downside to my own efforts in OSM, like
being banned or blocked, as I have been an enthusiastic and
ridiculously passionate OSM contributor and volunteer for over five
But now that it has, I do thank you for a civil and hopefully
fruitful discussion about these topics in a wider forum.
More information about the Talk-us