On topic, it seems silly to map (in OSM; obviously maps of such corridors are useful in their own right) a proposed route that is nothing more than a 50 mile wide corridor in which a route may eventually be routed, prospective USBR number or no.
Ian Dees <[email protected]> wrote: >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
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
