Again Paul I don't understand what you are saying: you state "if AASHTO is already referring to them in proposals." AASHTO has prepared a corridor plan. AASHTO does not develop routes. Route development takes place at the state level by the DOTs, advocates, or other agencies and this is always done in partnership with the respective DOTs. The DOTs are the only ones who can submit an application to AASHTO for USBR route designation so there is no point in "proposing" a route if you are not in communication with the DOTs or at least with the project team developing a route.
The OSM routes I am asking to be removed are strictly the opinion of a now-banned OSM mapper. That I can find this person had no communication with local, regional, or state level advocates or government agencies. He took existing state bike routes and entered them into OSM as proposed USBRs and tagged them with USBR numbers. Does this meet your definition of a "proposed" route Paul? I am not familiar with the details of all the options for placing a route in OSM but I don't see how you can put a route into OSM without choosing specific roads. And just for reference, neither the OpenCycleMap key nor the OpenStreetMap key shows the meaning of the dashed line as "proposed" so there is no way for the general public to know that these routes are in OSM/OCM as proposed. It would be great if OSM mappers would communicate with state project teams when an actual route development project is underway so that any map they generate would be in synch with the project. I would suggest that OSM mappers contact Adventure Cycling and we can put them in contact with project teams. Otherwise the OSM mapping looks more like "advocacy mapping" where an individual mapper is putting out their ideas of a USBR route, not connected with actual efforts to develop and designate a USBR. Kerry Irons Adventure Cycling From: Paul Johnson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 9:20 PM To: KerryIrons Cc: OpenStreetMap talk-us list; Andy Allen Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:37 PM, KerryIrons <[email protected]> wrote: 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? I strongly disagree that there's anything remotely resembling a consensus. But if it's proposed, it should be in there. And if AASHTO is already referring to them in proposals, I'm not sure I understand the opposition to keeping them there except that the renderer is displaying such routes too specifically. Am I missing something here? I don't see a reason to remove what, by all accounts, appears to be active proposals already using the numbers, from OSM when they're already tagged appropriately. So what I'm saying is, how can we resolve this that doesn't involve removing factual (if only on paper) data?
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
