On 2013-06-05 3:40 PM, KerryIrons wrote:
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.
Along these lines, my opinion is that a proposed route number _may_ be
tagged if (but only if) the number has currency beyond aspirational
planning documents. To borrow the language of linguistics, OSM is
descriptive, not prescriptive. For those who missed the discussion in
March, here are two cases in point:
- In Kentucky, two informal touring routes were tagged network=ncn,
cycle_network=US:US, ref=21/25, state=proposed. AFAICT, these numbers
have yet to be associated with a specific route designation proposal in
Kentucky, so I removed them. [1] (The badges will eventually disappear
from OpenCycleMap.)
- Ohio has taken concrete steps towards implementing Route 50. The
proposal is being developed in full public view, with local authorities
in seven counties passing resolutions of support. [2] Some of the
resolutions even stipulate the number 50 and a specific route. [3] For
these seven counties, the route is currently tagged network=ncn,
cycle_network=US:US, ref=50, state=proposed. The result is a dotted line
with a badge, making it easy for people to keep tabs on the project's
progress.
The key here is that the route has been proposed and promoted but not
yet approved. Sure, there's always a chance AASHTO will tweak or reject
the proposal after it's finalized and officially submitted, but the good
news is that OSM will be fixed if that happens. The same can't be said
of those resolutions. :-)
[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16442009
[2]
http://www.adventurecycling.org/resources/blog/a-trip-to-the-midwest-update-on-indiana-and-ohio/
[3] http://ci.london.oh.us/files/Resolution%20138-12.pdf
--
Minh Nguyen <[email protected]>
Jabber: [email protected]; Blog: http://notes.1ec5.org/
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
