If I can get the route through Oregon, I wouldn't mind finishing out that route.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 10:03 AM, KerryIrons <[email protected]>wrote: > Nathan, > > Thanks for letting me know the source of the OSM/OCM maps. Paul Johnson > has > contacted me as well. > > As you may have seen from other e-mail exchanges the goal here is to have a > coordinated mapping effort where the involved parties are communicating. > The OSM/OCM maps were brought to our attention by one of the bike advocates > working on USBR implementation. The message was basically "I don't know > where these came from and others I have contacted don't know either but > we'd > like to talk to whoever put them into the system." Since the process for > developing a USBR involves working directly with the local road agencies > who > have to approve the route we want to have clear communication with everyone > involved in a "no surprises" environment. > > I'm not saying that the routes you have chosen are "wrong" in any way but > that we need to have everyone in the loop from the start. > > We have been looking for how to maintain accurate maps of the USBRS as it > grows and OSM/OCM may be a useful tool for that purpose. We would like to > engage mappers to help us so we need communication and coordination to make > that happen. > > I think it would be productive for you and me to chat by phone at your > convenience. My number is 989-631-6368 and I'm available roughly 7:30 AM > to > 10:00 PM Eastern Time, any day of the week. > > > Kerry > > > PS - regarding your posts on the ACA forum: > > - I will contact AK DOT to see what they say about the limited access > sections of SR 1 on USBR 97. They are the ones who submitted the routes to > AASHTO and so I assume they have somehow dealt with this issue. > > - The numbering system was developed by an AASHTO task force and approved > by > AASHTO and so the general grid is in place. New routes can be and are > added > as needed but the general layout is firm. One can always second guess the > numbering choices. USBR 76 is a "legacy" route based on the original > Bikecentennial Route implemented in 1976 and is now the Adventure Cycling > Association TransAm route. All the other east/west route numbers work > around it and while it does result in some distortion we don't see any > serious issues that result. Route density in the western states is and > always will be low and the fact that 76 has an unusual number highlights > that it is an outlier. The federal highway system has comparable artifacts > - e.g. US 6 runs south of US 10. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nathan Edgars II [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 4:31 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] US Bicycle Routes in KY, TN, AL, MS, and GA > > I put them in, based on existing state bike routes that follow the > corridors, except in Alabama where the state has actually identified > proposed USBRS routings. These aren't just made-up routings, but existing > routes that will presumably be the first iteration in the process. OSM also > shows proposed roads whose alignment has not been finalized, such as the > Southport Connector: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.1227&lon=-81.3278&zoom=14&layers=M > > As for USBR 76 in Kentucky, it's my understanding that it's been approved > but isn't signed. Thus showing it as an active route would be misleading to > cyclists trying to follow it. > > Also note the routes out west, such as USBR 95. You'll want to talk to user > Paul Johnson about that one. > > PS: I've made several posts on the ACA forum but got no response: > http://www.adventurecycling.org/forums/index.php?topic=9929 > http://www.adventurecycling.org/forums/index.php?topic=11065 > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
