Talk:Great Lakes/Circle Tour

Road routes "and" bicycle routes

@Popball: @Wegerje: On 21:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC), Popball (talk) wrote: "...links you provided asserting the existance of the route ([1] and Great_Lakes_Circle_Tour) both refer to the road route. Neither has any mention of a bicycle as far as I can see. It also appears that Kerry was refering to the road route (I think?) Is there something I missed?"

I don't think it's a question of "missed," as there are a great many subtle issues happening here, it is easy to get lost in a miasma of details and whether something is "this or that" can be a matter of opinion. And/or, it takes a great deal of research which may or may not turn up a definitive answer. It seems the most major issue is whether routes in this network are truly ONLY road routes or are ALSO bicycle routes (in some cases, LMCT being the prime, only example right now, initially asserted by Wegerje). In the case of the route=bicycle of LMCT (and its -Alt "companion route"), which is what Wegerje initially entered to get the ball rolling on this topic (circa 2018), there truly are distinct elements in this route (such as Lakeshore Trail) which are highway=cycleway, meaning that these elements as part of this route=bicycle simply could not be in the route=road relation (as automobiles are prohibited on highway=cycleway). This makes this route=bicycle absolutely distinct from the route=road of the same name, which we both (and I think everybody) agrees, is "real." The question seems to be whether the route=bicycle is "just as real" (as the route=road) or whether it is "simply a good ride." I'll grant you that this seems to remain an open issue, continuing to call into question whether the route=bicycle belongs in OSM. And if you were to say "well, this is not an existence proof of it 'really' being a route, rather it appears to be a 'ride' somebody entered 'as if' it were a route," I can't fully agree, I can't fully disagree. Yes, these (GLCTs) have existed and have been signed for decades, the question remains whether they are intended to be "road only" (for automobiles exclusively) or whether there REALLY are similar-but-not-quite-equivalent "bicycle route(s)," too.

For many reasons, I am reluctant to redact (again) this route=bicycle relation (LMCT and its -Alt). In 13+ years of OSM editing, much of it having to do with regional/national/international bicycle routing in the USA, I HAVE redacted a fair number of route=bicycle relations when it was crystal-clear that they didn't belong in OSM (e.g. proprietary route data entering that violates OSM's ODbL, entering a USBR as Approved by AASHTO when it wasn't, local network=lcn routes entering with a wholly-coined numbering protocol that was not formally proposed, does not really exist and can only be supported by "Bike Route" signs, but with no numbering...) — the issues for entering "bad bike routes" (that shouldn't be in OSM) are many (meaning they SHOULD BE redacted). It even took as recent as the early 2020s before Minh, I and others agreed upon the text in United_States/Bicycle_Networks#What_to_map, where we specify what OSM says "Do map" and "Do not map." This (LMCT as a route=bicycle) is a classic "edge case" where even I (as someone square in the middle of the space where "I should know better") as a long-time, "in the space" OSM Contributor balance on a knife-edge of "this could go either way." I do want to "honor" that a route like LMCT and its -Alt, hundreds of miles long, that many (MANY!) have taken almost 300 revisions to enter (and keep "current"?) in OSM shouldn't have these data "simply deleted." On the other hand, we must respect what our wiki says we "do" and "do not" map. I could argue that the additional highway=cycleway-containing route=bicycle relations (which clearly MUST be different than the route=road of the same name) were co-developed with/by the same people (state/provincial DOTs, county roads departments, Chambers of Commerce for the tourism-promotion aspects...) as those who developed the route=road relation. But while I don't know that "for sure," I leave open that door of possibility as "research continues," better data and knowledge emerge and possibly, other GLCT route=bicycle relations emerge in OSM (and route=road relations for the two which remain incomplete are fully entered, too).

In short, "it's complicated," as well as "data about these routes is hard to come by" and even additionally, "substantial effort to enter route data into OSM should not be destroyed by being casually redacted." I don't want to be casual, I'm doing everything I can to "figure this out." (And I have since 2018). I ask that these data (LMCT and LMCT-Alt as route=bicycle relations) remain in OSM until further research or other growth in the GLCT network (which OSM really does want and benefits from) proves redaction or other actions are warranted. Stevea (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Stevea: Considering the fact that in those 3-4 years you're yet to find any definitive data about these routes, I have doubts of whether any data will ever reveal itself. I just don't know how we would verify any of this. Personally I'm not very worried about any waste of effort (the route would need to reverified in case it does exist) as I am about OSM having accurate, verifiable data. In any case, I'd like to gather here some of the research I've now done on the topic:

• A lot of the route data for the LMCT OSM relations originally comes from http://bikelakemichigan.com/ (as Wegerje has said, and the resemblance is still uncanny in some places where it wasn't edited to line up with USBR routes). From the bicycle blog by the authors of Bike Lake Michigan (now only available via the WayBackMachine) it becomes abundantly clear that it is not an official route, but rather just the ride that he reccomends.
• (At least in Milwaukee) I've never seen a signpost for it, and I've ridden on most of the sections included in the LMCT(9821641 9821641) LMCT-Alt(9821642 9821642) within Milwaukee County.
• It does't feature on any DOT bicycle map
• No information site about the LMCT ever mentions a bicycle-specific route around the lake (having read https://lakemichigancircletour.com/, https://lakemichigandestinations.com/circle-tour/, https://www.travelwisconsin.com/city/lake-michigan-circle-tour, and https://www.wmta.org/lake-michigan-lighthouse-map-circle-tour/lighthouse-driving-itinerary/)
• http://greatlakescircletour.org/tours/lmct.html only mentions planning for a potential for a USBR along the coridor, as we've already established

Thanks for your continued cooperation on this research. --Popball (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Popball: @Wegerje: Excellent! Wegerje, please chime in, if for no other reason to acknowledge that serious due diligence has been done here (regarding his years-ago assertion of LMCT and its -Alt into OSM). Indeed, thanks to Popball's research, I now lean towards recommending that because it more-and-more appears to be "a good ride" rather than an "official or semi-official" (signed, established by things like DOTs, county road departments...) bicycle-specific route, the RWGPS version of this should be what OSM might recommend, rather than including a route relation about it as part of OSM's database. It seems to fail to "reach the bar" we require for "what we DO map" as noted earlier. Let's give Wegerje some time to reply (if he does), see what he might say, and perhaps others who might chime in, as there may be replies / traffic from my talk-us post. Stevea (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Since it's been more than 2 weeks, I think we've done our due diligence, and no one has posed any opposition (either here, on the mailing list, or on slack), so I'll go about removing the route relations. --Popball (talk) 09:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)