Paul,
You explicitly said that putting 50 mile wide corridors on OSM "would be an important advocacy tool." That does not sound at all like "mapping reality." I spend hundreds of hours a year on the phone, corresponding, and attending meetings to make the USBR a reality. I've personally been involved in getting over 2,000 miles of USBRs approved. Don't give me stuff about being obtuse and saying the USBRS is a pipe dream. Personal insults are not the path forward. Kerry Irons From: Paul Johnson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 11:24 PM To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM, KerryIrons <[email protected]> wrote: So Paul, what you really want is advocacy mapping. Not mapping reality but mapping what you want to have. It comes as a great surprise to me that this is what OSM is all about. Do you think this is the consensus of the OSM community? I thought OSM's goal was to "accurately describe the world" but you are saying it is also advocacy. No, that's not what I'm advocating, and honestly, the way you're approaching this now, I really have to be wondering if you're being deliberately obtuse. Because if that's actually where you're coming from, you're essentially saying that the USBR system is a pipe dream. I'm not ready to buy that argument because the premise is fundamentally flawed on a level amounting to argumentum ad absurdum.
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
