Some clarification is needed. 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 having a USBR route number. This is the only thing I am seeking to have corrected.
I won't go into the political difficulties that can arise when a state, county, or community finds that OSM shows a USBR going through their jurisdiction when they know nothing about it (AASHTO requires their approval before designating a USBR). 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) but in other cases there has been no project initiated. Someone's perception of "this would make a good US Bicycle Route" is not, in my opinion, a justifiable rationale to start assigning route numbers at the mapper's discretion. It would be no different if someone thought an existing local road should be a state route, or a state route should be a federal route, and then put those tags on an OSM map. If I am misunderstanding how OSM works, please enlighten me. Kerry Irons Adventure Cycling Association -----Original Message----- From: Frederik Ramm [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 1:20 PM To: [email protected] 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 a > problem as long as they are mapped as "proposed" and not as "in place". AFAIK, opencyclemap.org displays them with dashed or dotted lines somehow. 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 OSM is questionable. On the other hand, I take exception at the original poster's apparent insistence on "routes approved by AASHTO". Whether or not a certain route has been approved by a certain third organisation is not usually something that OSM would care about. The usual OSM approach would be that if a route is signposted, then it can be mapped - if not, then not. An AASHTO approved route that is not signposted would not normally be mapped; and a signposted route that is not approved by AASHTO has every right to be mapped. Just my $.02 though. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ 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
