On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Greg Troxel <[email protected]> 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 about those numbers as if they're actually proposed. As far as I can tell, nobody's using any numbers that haven't been tossed around elsewhere yet, even if it's just a "we propose some day this route will extend this far" capacity as is the case with USBR 20 outside of Michigan, USBR 97 outside Alaska, etc.
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
