I suppose that since Cody is now tagged boundary=census that Alta and Jackson Hole "should" be as well? (And done, if so, I think). Can anybody confirm or actually do or might Brian or I do so?

👍

The reason these are not seen in a particular image is because they are seasonal. Somewhere around May-September, these are erected as temporary structures and staffed with lifeguards during the busy summer beach season.

It's awesome to see you "clearing TIGER road review"(s) as you continue to deepen and richen our local map data!

Bill, thank you for all your efforts with USBR 95! I must ask that you cease all editing of it in OSM immediately as it was goofed up severely (duplicated duplicated segments...) not even yet being before AASHTO. It's all wrong to even touch this right now (except for jimmies and sprinkles like Imperial Beach becoming México to be more Oregon-to-México California-wide). Camp Pendleton appears done, thanks again for great work there.

No edits on 95 until 95 is Approved (if it is), and then only with a newer resubmission, which I'd likely know about. Kerry, Jenn (ACA), Stephanie (Caltrans, our DOT) and I are literally freezing this right now. I'll fix the route goofed up (wrongly included in the super-relation) with an early-June archive. No toucha, please, Bill. Our wiki describes these, if you can't edit them (it appears you can't), don't edit them.

Your lucky day, Black_Diamond; the door closed just today with Stephanie Alward (Caltrans) agreeing (after years!) "the route is 100% complete and correctly entered." (Many heads nod, your correction went through the right channels, renderers chug away...).

Give it a few days (end of first week in June) to fully render in OCM for both NB and SB directions. Looks like end-of-June we'll hear about AASHTO Approval and by July 95 will go from red-dashed to red-solid throughout California (except for the "Pendleton Gap"). But there's options there, it's OK. Whew, we did it!

Thank you very much; done (with your link included)

A changeset comment might be terse to write all this: let's use the Talk page on United States Bicycle Routes wiki. Briefly, this was tagged ncn, I did some research into NSBs / All-American Roads and because of the (national-level) US Secretary of Transportation's designation of these (where GR "goes first") that ncn is correct.

Then a frequent bike mapper around the Twin Cities changed it back, I contacted him, he saw my point(s) and said, in essence, yes, these are more quasi-national (because of this).

We (OSM-US) remain in a "listening mode" as GR really is "going first" here. If it continues to vacillate or we don't get more bike routes that are NSBs entered into OSM that are tagged ncn, well, it could go either way. But for now, it is "emerging" that ncn is correct.

That sounds great. I'm going to be doing some watching and my usual listening, as I'm cautious about making "wholesale" changes to tagging, too. There really might be this new category of "quasi-national" emerging, and GR is the very first one in OSM, blazing a trail.

Maybe days, maybe a week, maybe a month, things don't move too swiftly in OSM, that gives time for consensus. I wrote what I wrote about this potential new category into our wiki a couple / three months ago, so as to see if other NSBs / AARs get entered into OSM...we'll see.

Thanks for your good dialog!

OK, that's helpful. Thank you.

Oops, I offer you an opportunity for explanation. I'm curious where these route data (especially that they are "Route 8 in the USBRS") came from.

Well, not so fast...I mean it's likely I will remove it given your response. However, I offer you an explanation for where these data came from, and/or what makes / made you think "I am pretty sure this is where the route is going to go." Really, I'm listening.

Um, have you read our USBRS wiki? (Full disclosure, I am substantially its author; other OSM volunteers help enter the route data, one recently from Germany!). Please see osm.wiki/USBRS and if you care to read about the German guy who helped, see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/aashto-s-usbrs-proposals-spring-2024-round-new-national-bicycle-route-proposals/110761 ).

What seems like it is happening is that a new category of "national" bike routes is emerging, namely these "designated by a national-level agency" (Grand Rounds / GR in an "All American Road" as part of the National Scenic Byway system, so designated by the US Secretary of Transportation). See osm.wiki/United_States/Bicycle_Networks , the "Quasi-National" section (National is for USBRs).

Both national and quasi-national are agreed to be tagged with network=ncn in the USA, making them both red in Cycle Map layer (or pinkish in CyclOSM). So, this was tagged ncn a few months ago, which made me think that a new "category" of quasi-national routes is emerging: those which are All American Roads (or NSB, a subset of AARs).

Yet, it may be that your local view of the cycleway networks is "easier" to see GR as regional / purple, rather than national / red, since the Twin Cities have a rather complex confluence of USBRs 20, 41, 45 (MRT) and 45A (MRT-Alt).

There's a long history here, and lots of people (in OSM, in state transportation circles, at the national AASHTO level...) strive to get this correct (since about 2011). However, I really want to hear local concerns / preferences. Thank you once again in advance.

This is not how we use the state=proposed tag for national-level bicycle routes in the USA. Please see our osm.wiki/United_States_Bicycle_Route_System for "the national system" and osm.wiki/United_States/Bicycle_Networks for how we tag bicycle routes in general (national, regional, local) in the USA.

The tag (really, the entire relation) should be removed unless you can point to what our wiki calls "a serious statewide effort to create such a route." As someone fairly plugged into how this is done, I sincerely doubt this, but I am listening. Not answering means the ncn tag (and possibly route relation) will be removed.

May I ask why you changed Grand Rounds NSB from network=ncn to network=rcn? I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here, I'm very much in listening mode. Thank you.

Nice!

Where is the "administrative boundary" of any "unincorporated community" defined? (I mean, strictly?)

If you say it is a (US Department of Commerce) Census Boundary, that's OK, but those are tagged with boundary=census.

By wide OSM community consensus, unincorporated areas (in California and at least 47 other states), do not receive an admin_level value, of 9 or any other value on the admin_level key.

A boundary=administrative + admin_level=9 tag is (sometimes, under very recently agreed to by local, New England area residents) occasionally tagged on unincorporated areas in New Hampshire, Maine and (more rarely) Vermont, but it was a real stretch to get there, though OSM did. See our United States/admin_level wiki page (and its companion, United States/Boundaries).

👍

I ask that if you assert that you are definitively stating roads / streets into OSM (like Redwood Drive, which appears to come from TIGER data, but is version 1) that you remove the tiger:reviewed=no tag.

There remains a fair amount of TIGER Review to complete in Santa Cruz County (though we make steady progress) and every little bit of assertion as to "better data" helps.

I am not sure boundary=political is best, it is a dart on the board, and not on the bullseye. It may be boundary=historic works, this is all very liquid. I think this needs a wider discussion medium than the narrow bandwidth of a changeset comment. I welcome a new topic in the USA section of our Discourse forum.

This all seems do-able, but it always benefits more from a wider, deeper audience. So, while you might choose to "worry," tossing it to a wider discussion is prudent. I wouldn't say I "took care of it," I "hit the dartboard but not the bullseye."

If you think border_type=planning_region can stick (and now that you mention it, I can see this sticking widely across many states), it's beginning to roll down the track of getting nailed together. We lay down some track here and continue with wider discussion.