Well, this begs the question a bit...what's the difference between chasing down an estimated proposal and tagging it as such, and the extremely vague PDF that's out there? I'm thinking the tagging makes for a clearer understanding on where the route might go, and I believe adding the appropriate disclaimer to the proposed route would be a mitigating factor on the "end run" concern. I believe Richard at Sustrans is ultimately driving the same point.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 9:27 AM, KerryIrons <[email protected]>wrote: > Paul, > > The challenge is between wanting to move the USBR process forward with a > push from having a proposed route "out there" and the risk of push back > when > some official basically says "What the heck is this?" We have had this > exact experience in Michigan during the development (now official) of USBR > 35 so it is not just a theoretical possibility. The fine points of > "proposed" are easily lost if someone suspects they are being left out of > the loop or experiencing an end run. > > The way the process works is to develop a proposed route and then take it > to > the involved communities, counties, trail owners, and DOTs involved. As we > gain their concurrence those pieces of the route become firm and can be > publicized to good purpose - this can push adjacent jurisdictions to get on > board. We finally got one road commission to agree to the route when one > of > their members said "Everyone else has approved. What's our excuse?" Much > as we would like it otherwise, local politics are very much part of getting > a USBR designated. > > We would like to harness the enthusiasm shown in putting these routes on > OSM > to directly help with the designation process. I became aware of these > routes being on OSM when one of the advocates working within a state > contacted ACA and said "What's going on here?" We don't need that kind of > confusion. We have talked about the need for a user-friendly mapping > technology through which we can easily develop and share proposed USBRs and > have been using Google Maps for that. Perhaps OSM is a better tool and > that > is why we would like to work with the OSM mapper community to sort that > out. > > > My outreach is not an attempt to be adversarial but rather to channel our > efforts. We are always short on resources and we don't want to see > duplication of effort or confusion result from independent projects that > are > not in communication. > > > Kerry > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Johnson [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:35 AM > To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] US Bicycle Routes in KY, TN, AL, MS, and GA > > What I mean to say is these were likely mapped with the understanding that > these routes are subject to change before they're official and on the > ground. The ones I've come across have been tagged as such. While I > understand your concern, I believe you may be putting too much weight into > the significance. I encourage ACA to work with OSM to get such routes > mapped on the preferred corridor with a note that these routes can and > likely will move up to 50 miles either way in their final form. Doing so > can be useful for providing visualization and mustering support for such > routes on a much more concise and clear scale than previously available. > It > may be unwise to take quite such an adversarial approach for an effort that > appears to have complementary goals. > > On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 5:30 PM, KerryIrons <[email protected]> > wrote: > Paul, > > The process for proposing a US Bicycle Route is well defined. It does not > consist of people simply putting a route on a public map system like > OpenStreetMaps/OpenCycleMaps. There are local road agency approvals > required and there is a risk of significant backlash when these agencies > perceive that routes are being proposed without their involvement. The > routes as they appear on OpenStreetMaps/OpenCycleMaps are not approximate > but rather are on specific state and local roads. > > I have been contacted by the person who put these routes into OpenSteetMaps > and will sort things out with him. > > > Kerry > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Johnson [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 3:19 PM > Cc: OpenStreetMap talk-us list > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] US Bicycle Routes in KY, TN, AL, MS, and GA > > If it's showing up with an "under construction" or "proposed" status, it's > subject to change and there for approximate visualization in those cases. > If you'd like to propose a better way to handle that situation, I'm sure > the folks involved would love to hear it! > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:48 PM, KerryIrons <[email protected]> > wrote: > All, > > I am heavily involved in the development of US Bicycle Routes (see > www.adventurecycling.org/usbrs) and it has come to my attention that > OpenStreetMap/OpenCycleMap have proposed maps for US Bicycle Routes 21, 25, > 80, and 84 in KY, TN, AL, MS, and GA. The routes are shown as dashed lines > but with the USBR numbers on them. At the same time USBR 76 is shown as > proposed but in fact it has officially been designated in KY. > > As of now there are only proposed corridors for these routes (50 mile wide > areas where a route could be developed) and so showing specific proposed > routes is beyond the current status of any of these USBRs. It could be > argued that USBR 25 will likely follow the Adventure Cycling Underground > Railroad route but none of the states involved have applied for designation > of these routes with AASHTO, the official body in charge of the USBR > system. > > > I would like to get in contact with the mapper(s) who put these routes into > OpenStreetMap/OpenCycleMap and clarify this. We are always looking for > enthusiastic folks who want to work on the USBR system but in this case > putting detailed routes on maps is a source of confusion. > > Please contact me at your convenience if you have been involved in putting > these routes into OpenStreetMap/OpenCycleMap. > > > Kerry Irons > Adventure Cycling Association > [email protected] > 989-631-6368 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
