Paul, The "extremely vague PDF" is a corridor plan, not a route network. The plan was designed specifically to show where routes should be developed, leaving the details at the state level and to be defined later. There is no way a national effort could have been done by trying to choose the specific streets, roads, and trails to be used.
It's fine to tag a route as "proposed" but proposed by who? If a bike advocate or local government official finds the OSM/OCM routes they will not intuitively grasp what is going on. What is likely to happen is just what triggered my inquiry here: a bike advocate saw this and asked "What is going on?" They had no sense where these proposed routes came from or who developed them. Most people are not going to become OSM members in order to figure this sort of thing out. And therein lies the source of confusion. For a non-member viewer of these maps there is no information about the source of the map or how to contact the mapper to discuss the map. Then you get into the "Which map are we working from?" problem. I keep coming back to the need for communication and coordination. Kerry Irons Adventure Cycling Association -----Original Message----- From: Paul Johnson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 2:16 PM To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list Subject: Re: [Talk-us] US Bicycle Routes in KY, TN, AL, MS, and GA 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
