An update to the talk-us pages on what most here might feel got
typed to death in a lengthy thread.
Kerry and I have recently exchanged over a dozen missives, resulting
in substantial improvement in how OSM captures data representing
national bicycle routes. However, due to slower render
.
** **
Kerry Irons
** **
** **
*From:* Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org]
*Sent:* Saturday, June 08, 2013 11:24 PM
*To:* OpenStreetMap talk-us list
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
** **
** **
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor
-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net
wrote:
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
From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org]
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 11:24 PM
To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net
wrote:
So Paul, what you
On 6/14/2013 5:43 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
We do map proposed routes, we don't map for the renderer.
earlier
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
This would be an acceptable compromise.
On Jun 14, 2013 6:00 PM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote:
On 6/14/2013 5:43 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
We do map proposed routes, we don't map for the renderer.
earlier
In which I would really prefer this be addressed as a rendering issue. I
believe
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
I see the route numbers as potentially valuable to differentiate routes
where two may cross or duplex. Unless I'm missing something fundamental,
pretty much every aspect in a state=proposed relation isn't final until it's
official, including
To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net
wrote:
So Paul, what you really want is advocacy mapping. Not mapping reality but
mapping what you want to have. It comes as a great
I agree with you.
Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
On 6/7/13 8:44 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
If we're going for accuracy, corridor proposals should be mapped as a
polygon. They are area features which may someday become linear.
That said, I don't think that such early proposals belong
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:52 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.netwrote:
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
Association
From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@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 irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net
wrote:
It sounds like you want to add
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.netwrote:
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
On 6/8/2013 4:18 PM, KerryIrons wrote:
Here’re just some of the comments from OSM members:
I'll add my opinion that I don't see the need for route numbers to be
assigned to proposed routes. Dashed lines suffice for the purposes of
previewing a possible path.
(In which case, like
I see the route numbers as potentially valuable to differentiate routes
where two may cross or duplex. Unless I'm missing something fundamental,
pretty much every aspect in a state=proposed relation isn't final until
it's official, including the route number. Especially since as far as I'm
stevea stevea...@softworkers.com writes:
To breathe a little fresh air into this discussion (and perhaps pour a
little oil on troubled waters): I have enjoyed in the last few hours
some email exchanges with both Kerry and Paul.
In short, Kerry and I are discussing how it is inappropriate
On 6/7/13 9:59 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
Given that, I think it's only really useful to discuss whether any
specific route merits a proposed tag, with the facts of that situation.
we probably want to see this as a life cycle issue relating to any
sort of highway/route situation, not just these
route, not
connected with actual efforts to develop and designate a USBR.
Kerry Irons
Adventure Cycling
From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@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
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:35 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.netwrote:
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
If we're going for accuracy, corridor proposals should be mapped as a polygon.
They are area features which may someday become linear.
That said, I don't think that such early proposals belong in the database at
all.
Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:35 PM,
On 6/7/13 8:44 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
If we're going for accuracy, corridor proposals should be mapped as a polygon.
They are area features which may someday become linear.
That said, I don't think that such early proposals belong in the database at
all.
i think they can go in when they can
On 2013-06-05 3:40 PM, KerryIrons wrote:
I have no problem with OSM mappers putting proposed bike routes on maps but
they should not be assigning USBR route numbers to them when they are not
approved USBRs. In some cases there is a process underway to get a route
number assigned (as I noted)
for the project teams or for OSM mappers.
Kerry Irons
Adventure Cycling Association
-Original Message-
From: Greg Troxel [mailto:g...@ir.bbn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 7:02 PM
To: Frederik Ramm
Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
05, 2013 7:02 PM
To: Frederik Ramm
Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org writes:
An argument *against* having proposed routes is the verifiability - we
usually try to have data where someone
: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
Are these bicycle routes being labeled USBR-## ? If they're not, I don't see
the problem. If they are being labeleed USBR-## incorrectly, well, that's
incorrect. I haven't read in detail every message on this thread -- are
there example USBR bicycle
:17 AM
To: KerryIrons
Cc: 'Greg Troxel'; 'Frederik Ramm'; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
Are these bicycle routes being labeled USBR-## ? If they're not, I don't
see
the problem. If they are being labeleed USBR-## incorrectly, well, that's
To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:15 AM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net
wrote:
Again, a number of points of clarification are needed.
First, there is a single body in the US for assigning numbers to US Bicycle
, 2013 10:43 AM
To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
See, that's the crux of the thing, though... firstly, be aware that NE2 was
banned because he was pushing his agenda against the wishes of the
community, and taking things off-list where things
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:49 AM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.netwrote:
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
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:03 AM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.netwrote:
You really are making this personal Paul, but I don’t understand why.
That's not the intent.
I only asked that those who might want to help clean up the mis-tagged
routes
could contact me directly. Is that some
: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 irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net
wrote:
Actually Paul, people have disagreed. There are those who have taken the
position in this exchange that Who does
.
** **
** **
Kerry Irons
** **
*From:* Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@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 irons54vor
To breathe a little fresh air into this discussion (and perhaps pour
a little oil on troubled waters): I have enjoyed in the last few
hours some email exchanges with both Kerry and Paul.
In short, Kerry and I are discussing how it is inappropriate for OCM
to display a USBR as a proposed ncn
** **
*From:* Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@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
irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:37 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.netwrote:
**
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
Kerry Irons wrote:
Nathan,
[...]
Please advise when you will remove these tags.
Nathan (NE2) has been given an indefinite ban from OpenStreetMap on
account of his inability to work with others on what is a crowd-sourcing
project: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/347
It'll therefore
Kerry,
NE2 has been indefinitely banned (see
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-May/010867.html ) so
if you want these changed, have at it.
Cheers, Brad
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013, KerryIrons wrote:
Nathan,
3 months ago we discussed the existence of US Bicycle Route
2013/6/5 KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net
3 months ago we discussed the existence of US Bicycle Route number tags in
the Midwest. The OSM consensus was clear: only approved US Bicycle Routes
should be tagged in OSM.
Since those routes (21, 25, 50, 80, 84 and 35 in Indiana) have not
Hi,
On 05.06.2013 14:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I am mostly not mapping in the US,
me neither...
but I'd like to raise awareness that
in Europe proposed bicycle routes are often mapped, and I don't see a
problem as long as they are mapped as proposed and not as in place.
AFAIK,
This creates major issues for many routes in the US, especially bike
routes, US Historic 66, US Historic 30, and US Historic 666, which due to
regional significance, unique and interesting signage, or both, frequently
are missing trailblazers, confirmation signage or way finding signage in
part or
Am 05.06.2013 um 19:20 schrieb Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
The usual OSM approach would be that if a route is signposted, then it can be
mapped - if not, then not.
Somehow the on-the-ground rule was extended to include what is verifiable on
paper as well. See administrative borders
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
Hi,
On 05.06.2013 14:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I am mostly not mapping in the US,
me neither...
but I'd like to raise awareness that
in Europe proposed bicycle routes are often mapped, and I don't see
Kerry,
On 06.06.2013 00:40, KerryIrons wrote:
It is not that these roads might be good bicycle routes or even that they
are perhaps part of existing or proposed bicycle routes. But they are not
approved US Bicycle Routes and therefore do not have a USBR route number.
The maps show them as
Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org writes:
An argument *against* having proposed routes is the verifiability - we
usually try to have data where someone on the ground could easily
check the correctness by looking at signs. Since proposed routes are
unlikely to be signposted, having them in
On 5 June 2013 23:50, Martin Koppenhöfer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 05.06.2013 um 19:20 schrieb Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
The usual OSM approach would be that if a route is signposted, then it
can be mapped - if not, then not.
Somehow the on-the-ground rule was extended
To: Martin Koppenhöfer
Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
On 5 June 2013 23:50, Martin Koppenhöfer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 05.06.2013 um 19:20 schrieb Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
The usual OSM approach would be that if a route
Thomas Colson thomas_col...@nps.gov writes:
I'm confused: is the issue tagging a bike route with some sort of
official number when it really doesn’t have one,
The current discussion is about tagging a proposed bike route with a
number in USBR namespace, when the USBR naming authority has not
On 05.06.2013 14:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I'd like to raise awareness that
in Europe proposed bicycle routes are often mapped, and I don't see a
problem as long as they are mapped as proposed and not as in place.
Proposed bicycle routes rendering as dashed lines are VERY useful to
us
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:40 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.netwrote:
I have no problem with OSM mappers putting proposed bike routes on maps but
they should not be assigning USBR route numbers to them when they are not
approved USBRs. In some cases there is a process underway to get a
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
The current discussion is about tagging a proposed bike route with a
number in USBR namespace, when the USBR naming authority has not put
that router/number into proposed status.
Then the relevant bodies need to stop bandying
I just wanted to add that the CycleNet proposal I mentioned in my
previous post is simply a numbering protocol added to ALREADY
EXISTING (Class I, II and III) bicycle infrastructure. All of the
proposed routes are actual bicycle infrastructure out there
today. What is being proposed is
What's the source for this system? Is it widely adopted?
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:01 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote:
I just wanted to add that the CycleNet proposal I mentioned in my previous
post is simply a numbering protocol added to ALREADY EXISTING (Class I, II
and III)
@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
Message-ID: 1370434883115-5764067.p...@n5.nabble.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Kerry Irons wrote:
Nathan,
[...]
Please advise when you will remove these tags.
Nathan (NE2) has been given an indefinite
52 matches
Mail list logo
