Don't knock the unicorn viewing sites. They are everywhere. On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:55 PM, Darrell Fuhriman <darr...@garnix.org> wrote:
> Please for the love of god, I see no one here in favor of it but you. They > are imaginary, let's delete them and move on. > > They have no more place in OSM than unicorn viewing locations and alien > landing sites. > > d. > > On Jun 14, 2013, at 14:43, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > >> Again, I'm still not hearing a suggestion that would keep this valuable >> information in OSM, or a compelling reason not to keep it. We do map >> proposed routes, we don't map for the renderer. It still sounds like the >> core issue is some proposals are mapped more specifically than they are on >> paper. I don't think this is an insurmountable problem to fix within the >> boundaries of not tagging for the renderer. With that in mind, I would love >> to hear ideas how to tackle the proposed corridor issue so that they may be >> more properly mapped, not outright excluded over cyclemap rendering issues. >> >> On Jun 9, 2013 7:25 AM, "KerryIrons" <irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> 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:ba...@ursamundi.org] >>> 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 <irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net> >>> 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 >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
