See, that's the crux of the thing, though... firstly, be aware that NE2 was banned because he was pushing his agenda against the wishes of the community, and taking things off-list where things couldn't be discussed with the community, so you're just as guilty as he is right now with that request.
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:32 AM, KerryIrons <[email protected]>wrote: > Yes, these routes have been labeled with USBR numbers. This is the issue I > raised back in March and the only issue of concern. I asked the person who > did the labeling to remove the labels and he did not. I find subsequently > that he has been banned. Steve All of California has agreed to help in > removing those tags. Others who are interested in this issue can contact > me > off-list. > > > Kerry Irons > > -----Original Message----- > From: Russ Nelson [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 10:17 AM > To: KerryIrons > Cc: 'Greg Troxel'; 'Frederik Ramm'; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags > > Are these bicycle routes being labeled USBR-## ? If they're not, I don't > see > the problem. If they are being labeleed USBR-## incorrectly, well, that's > incorrect. I haven't read in detail every message on this thread -- are > there example USBR bicycle routes in OSM that we could look at? > > KerryIrons writes: > > Again, a number of points of clarification are needed. > > > > First, there is a single body in the US for assigning numbers to US > Bicycle > Routes. AASHTO owns the process, just as they do for all > federal > highways > in the US. There can be any number of state and local bicycle > routes, > proposed or implemented, but those are not USBRs until AASHTO > approves > designation. > > > > The process for doing this can vary but it culminates with a state > > department of transportation submitting an application to AASHTO to approve > > proposed numbering. Once AASHTO approves (they have never declined an > > application) the route is officially a USBR. While AASHTO encourages > > signing of USBRs there is no signing requirement so a route can exist "on > > > paper" (and on the Internet) but not have any signs posted. When a project > > is initiated to get a section of a USBR approved within a state, the > first > > step is to define a proposed route, but there can be many revisions to > that > route as it gains local jurisdiction approvals (required) for each > route > section. There is no problem with showing these proposed routes > on > OSM but > tagging them with USBR numbers can create significant work for > the approval > process team due to "ruffled feathers" at the local > jurisdiction level. > > > > You can look at the USBR corridor plan at > > > www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-route-system/national-co > > rridor-plan/ The corridors are roughly 50 mile wide area in which a > route > could be defined. Just because a corridor exists does not mean > that any > specific road/street/trail has been defined as part of the > route. On the > corridor map, a solid dark line means the route is > approved by AASHTO, a > shadowed and colored line means that the corridor > exists but no route is > defined, and a grey line means that a corridor > could be added along that > path. A corridor is a concept for future > development of a route. It is not > a route. > > > > It should be noted that there is a lot of history to the USBRS that > explains > the heretofore slow pace of route implementation. It is > inaccurate and > unfair to blame any one organization for that slow pace. > As of now there > are 5,600 miles of designated routes and many more are > being developed. > > > > As to whether the concerns I have raised are a mountain or a molehill, I > > would simply say that those who want to ignore the political realities of > > getting a route approved need to walk a mile in the shoes of those doing > the > actual work. Spending hours explaining why a route is not going > through a > given community, even though there is a map somewhere showing > that it does, > is not seen by a project team as a good use of their time. > Spending hours > trying to convince a community to accept a route when > they > feel it is being > shoved down their throat because it appeared on a map > before they ever heard > about it is not a good way to spend time either. > > > > My only goal here is to keep the OSM efforts in synch with the efforts > of > > various USBR project teams across the US. There is no point in creating > > extra work for the project teams or for OSM mappers. > > > > > > Kerry Irons > > Adventure Cycling Association > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg Troxel [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, > 2013 7:02 PM > To: Frederik Ramm > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags > > > Frederik > Ramm > <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > 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. > > > > I see verifiability as having a broader sense. In the case of > officially > > proposed USBR routes, someone who is local can look up the government > > documents, meeting minutes, or whatever and determine if the route > numbering > > authority has in fact put the route into proposed status. That's > > essentially what Kerry is talking about. That's beyond looking at signs, > > > but some things on the map aren't obvious from standing near them - > official > > names are a complicated mix of signs on the ground, meeting minutes from > > naming authorities, 911 or tax databases, etc. To me, the point is that > one > can determine an answer by observing evidence, and reasonable people > can > discuss the total evidence and come to rough consensus. > > > > > 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 > > > I > don't see that at all. For a US highway, there is some part of the federal > > bureaucracy that assigns highway numbers. A road is a US highway if it's > > officially been designated, and the signs are expected to keep up with > that > offiical designation. If there's a case where a road has been > designated as > a US highway, and the locals know it, but there are no > signs (Because > they've been stolen, or because there was no budget to > put > them up, or the > sign people are on strike, or they've all been knocked > down in winter car > accidents, or whatever), then it's still proper to > tag > it as a US highway. > > > > > that if a route is signposted, then it can be mapped - if not, then > > > not. > > > > I do agree that tagging a highway because one wishes that it were > otherwise > is bogus. But as long as a local mapper is determing a form > of > reality by > relatively objective means, I don't see a problem. > > > > > An AASHTO approved route that is not signposted would not normally be > > > mapped; > > I think there may be a bit of terminology confusion: > Kerry > seems to mean > "approved" as "approved by the numbering authority as a > proposed route which > has not yet been constructed/signed". That's > similar to "the government has > decided to extend I-101 on these 10 > miles, > but hasn't built it yet". So > either it's ok to show it, or we should > remove all highway=proposed. But I > think it's useful to have > highway=proposed, so that those who want can > render it. > highway=proposed > is still subject to crowdsourcing editing and > quality control, and > should > mean that the cognizant naming authority has > published a specific plan. > > > > I think this is the crux of Kerry's point - proposed cycle routes only > make > sense if the authority that controls the relevant ref namespace has > actually > proposed them. So even from your verfiability concern > viewpoint, I think if > people did as Kerry asked, there would be far > fewer > proposed routes in the > db, and all of them would be widely recognized as > legitimately and actually > proposed. > > > > > and a signposted route that is not approved by AASHTO has every right > > > to be mapped. > > > > This is similar to what would happen if someone put up "US 99" signs on > > their little side street, just because they were in the mood and had > signs > > and a hammer and nails. That doesn't make it US 99 -- it's just simple > > > vandalism -- , if other evidence says it's not true. This is really the > > same situation. > > > > Now if the guerilla route is not in an official namespace, and the signs > > persist, then I have no issue with it being mapped. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
