On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:49 AM, KerryIrons <[email protected]>wrote:
> Actually Paul, people have disagreed. There are those who have taken the > position in this exchange that "Who does AASHTO think they are?" I and > others have tried to clarify that. > Then I have to wonder why ACA is playing both sides of this coin, by proposing these numbers, then trying to censor them when other people come across proposals. > The fact that local jurisdictions are confused and distracted by the > meaning of "proposed" means that we can reduce confusion by not tagging > proposed routes with USBR numbers. It sounds like you want to blame those > who are confused rather than help reduce the confusion. If we know from > experience how best to approach local jurisdictions for their approval, why > would we engage in behavior that makes more work in that process? > Maybe it's not the best approach, since ultimately you're trying to get the proposals retagged for one specific renderer. Rather than removing information that is useful for people working on the map or trying to follow these proposals, we need another tag that hints to renderers some sort of margin of error for proposed routes. Hopefully Andy Allen could chime in since he's maintaining the OpenCycleMap renderer. > ** > > **Adventure Cycling does not seek to monopolize the process, and there > are a number of states that have proceeded in gaining USBR designation on > their own. However they do come to Adventure Cycling for advice since few > states can claim to be ‘experienced” in the process. I got involved in > this because a state group came to me and asked what was going on with a > bunch of USBRs tagged in their state on OSM about which they knew nothing. > That does not reflect “a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘proposed’ on > exclusively [my] part.” > > ** > > ** ** > > You seem to think this sort of thing is just fine, but it creates > headaches and extra work. Why you think it is OK that OSM would stimulate > those headaches and extra work is confusing to me. > We're ultimately on the same page here, but we're coming at this from differing approaches, and I can't help but to think the ACA's trying to have it both ways when it comes to proposed routes, particularly those still in the early stages. > *I* don’t know what you are referencing regarding Oregon. At this time > Oregon has stated that their priorities lie with creating their own state > routes rather than with the USBRS. We think we have a good working > relationship with Oregon but you appear to have inside information. Please > contact me off-list if you’re willing to share. > My experience with the two ODOTs I've been in contact with: Both Oregon and Oklahoma are open to the idea of USBRs. It's been a while since I've worked with Oregon but my impression from them is that they've found their ACA interactions to be along the lines of the ACA delivering edicts without providing any assistance for securing federal funding for installing and maintaining these routes (even for no-brainer, shovel-done, just-install-the-signs projects like the USBR 97 concurrency with the entire length of the Oregon Coast Bike Route). Oregon seems to have felt left out of the design process, since the USBR trailblazers are confusingly similar to Oregon State Route shields. They want to get it done, but need help, not just told what to do. They're already on board so quit selling; it's time to deliver on getting the money to make it happen, and Oregon's feeling the burn on that. Oklahoma is positive to the idea, having just initiated it's first state bike route which is almost certainly 100% concurrent with USBR 66, but isn't sure how to get it off the ground (it's been official since last November for the length of Historic US 66 in Oklahoma except where State Highway 66 still extends, it takes that instead, except on segments where it takes a road with minimum speeds in which it's just unclear where it's ultimately going to land even now that it's official). This could probably be salvaged, but getting more than just the ACA involved and perhaps getting some transportation planning trade groups *in Oklahoma* would be a good start. Oklahoma's already sold on the tourism aspect and wants to make it happen. Ultimately, it feels like ACA bit off a little too much to do on their own, and really needs to get involved with more groups to encourage the dialogue, not snuff it out and keep it to themselves.
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
