Let's bring this thread back on topic please. This isn't a cycle route ownership discussion list, this is an OSM community in the US discussion list.
Further off-topic posts to this thread will result in moderation. On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:37 PM, KerryIrons <[email protected]>wrote: > Paul I don’t understand what you are saying. You keep referring to “have > it both ways” and “playing both sides of this coin.” It appears to be > insinuating some sort of duplicitousness or nefarious behavior on the part > of Adventure Cycling.**** > > ** ** > > Adventure Cycling did not propose the USBR route numbers. The route > numbering system and the corridor plan came from AASHTO. We had > representation on the AASHTO Task Force but were only one of many members > on that group. You say that trying to provide a clear message to local > jurisdictions constitutes censorship. Based on most of the comments I have > seen the OSM community has agreed that bicycle routes should not be tagged > as USBRs if they are not USBRs. Do you disagree with that consensus?**** > > ** ** > > There is no federal funding for signing USBRs and there never has been. > Blaming Adventure Cycling for not securing funding that does not exist > seems unfair. We (and many other national level advocates) did manage to > get language inserted into a draft Transportation Bill but then the 2010 > election happened and federal funds for bicycling were cut significantly.* > *** > > ** ** > > The MUTCD is not the jurisdiction of Adventure Cycling, and they are the > ones who came up with the new USBR sign. All the state DOTs are part of > AASHTO and have the ability to comment on new sign designs. There is often > tension between states and national level sign design specifications, but > Adventure Cycling played a minimal role in the new M1-9 sign design. You > appear to blame Adventure Cycling for something in which we have no control. > **** > > ** ** > > We are working closely with the Oklahoma Bicycling Coalition in trying to > get USBR 66 approved, as we are with New Mexico, Arizona, California, > Missouri, and Illinois. We’ve had numerous conference calls and provided > extensive information to OK (DOT and state level advocates) and have a good > relationship with them. You seem to believe otherwise.**** > > ** ** > > Do you believe that putting maps in the public domain that represent the > views and desires of individual mappers is a better approach to > implementing USBRs than working with the ongoing project teams in the > individual states? This appears to be your message. Adventure Cycling is > trying to coordinate with those state level teams and you seem to view this > as a power grab.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Kerry Irons**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Paul Johnson [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 06, 2013 11:16 AM > *To:* OpenStreetMap talk-us list; Andy Allen > *Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags**** > > ** ** > > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
