Re: [Talk-us] Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes (was: Streaming JOSM -- suggestions?)

[Alex Hennings]

Kevin,

Maybe we have different contexts? In my area, we have privately owned roads
 that are more than just
driveways.

Regarding: "*don't worry about it*"

I find this dissatisfying.

The *sole purpose* of routing is to get the user to their destination
without breaking any laws. These are also *specifically my* *goals *when
I'm using a router. Frequently (in my rural area) getting to my destination
requires using a privately owned road. You might say "access=private" isn't
a problem because I can tell my router to ignore "access=private". But I
don't want to go down any roads that say "Stay out" and have a gate, or a
person brandishing a rifle.
When every privately owned road is marked as access=private, it is not
possible for me to achieve both of those goals (get there, don't break
laws) at the same time. By encouraging routers to ignore "access=private"
you're neutering real access restrictions.

So, you're either saying *don't worry about* breaking laws, or *don't worry
about* getting to your destination

That is my argument *against access=private* on privately owned roads. My
argument *for ownership=private* is to set a clear and visible precedent
that private ownership *has a tag*, which
*is not the access tag.*

-Alex



On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 11:49 PM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 6:05 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:
> > >  - The access -- somewhat common to find a pubic road imported with
> access=private, so if I suspect this I'll leave the tiger:reviewed=no tag
> until access can be confirmed, and add a note or fixme. (It's also quite
> common to find driveways imported as access=private. When surveying, I tend
> to remove the private tag if the driveway isn't gated or signed private,
> since access=private will prevent routing to the house at the end of the
> driveway, sometimes even ending the route on a different residential road
> that's physically closer to the house than the road the driveway's
> connected to.)
> > I always thought that driveways to private residences and private roads
> (whether gated or not) should be tagged as access=private.  Often these
> private roads are posted with a sign that says something like "Private
> road, no trespassing", or "Private Road, Residents and Guests Only."
>
> One thing to watch out for in the countryside is that there are often
> streets signed 'Xxx Drive // PRIVATE'  meaning that the road is
> privately maintained, rather than meaning 'no trespassing.'
>
> But here I think that the importance of the distinction is overblown.
> I strongly suspect:
>
> (1) People don't ordinarily want to be routed down these
> privately-maintained roads (which are usually, in effect, driveways
> that happen to serve more than one establishment) unless they have
> business with some establishment on the road.
> (2) Delivery drivers use routers that allow for access to private
> drives to deliver to the associated residence.  (In effect, the person
> who ordered the goods for delivery has issued an invitation to the
> carrier.)
>
> and hence, the public/private distinction for service ways falls in my
> mental model under, 'don't worry about it.'
>
> --
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes (was: Streaming JOSM -- suggestions?)

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 6:05 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:
> >  - The access -- somewhat common to find a pubic road imported with 
> > access=private, so if I suspect this I'll leave the tiger:reviewed=no tag 
> > until access can be confirmed, and add a note or fixme. (It's also quite 
> > common to find driveways imported as access=private. When surveying, I tend 
> > to remove the private tag if the driveway isn't gated or signed private, 
> > since access=private will prevent routing to the house at the end of the 
> > driveway, sometimes even ending the route on a different residential road 
> > that's physically closer to the house than the road the driveway's 
> > connected to.)
> I always thought that driveways to private residences and private roads 
> (whether gated or not) should be tagged as access=private.  Often these 
> private roads are posted with a sign that says something like "Private road, 
> no trespassing", or "Private Road, Residents and Guests Only."

One thing to watch out for in the countryside is that there are often
streets signed 'Xxx Drive // PRIVATE'  meaning that the road is
privately maintained, rather than meaning 'no trespassing.'

But here I think that the importance of the distinction is overblown.
I strongly suspect:

(1) People don't ordinarily want to be routed down these
privately-maintained roads (which are usually, in effect, driveways
that happen to serve more than one establishment) unless they have
business with some establishment on the road.
(2) Delivery drivers use routers that allow for access to private
drives to deliver to the associated residence.  (In effect, the person
who ordered the goods for delivery has issued an invitation to the
carrier.)

and hence, the public/private distinction for service ways falls in my
mental model under, 'don't worry about it.'

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes (was: Streaming JOSM -- suggestions?)

[Adam Franco]

>
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 6:12 PM Alex Hennings 
> wrote:
>
...
> I've developed a strong opinion that a privately owned road (or anything
> else) should be tagged "ownership=private". Don't confuse the ownership
> with the access rights even though we use the same word for them in
> English. Them being "often posted..." doesn't mean we can assume they
> always are. Please only record data that there is evidence for.
>

I just want to second this statement. I'm quite frustrated that the TIGER
import added access=private to privately maintained roads that should
instead be tagged with ownership=private. This broad-scale mis-tagging
suggests to later mappers that this is the way to tag privately maintained
roads, leading to overly restrictive access restrictions that don't match
reality.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes (was: Streaming JOSM -- suggestions?)

[Alex Hennings]

Regarding:
"
Often these private roads are posted with a sign that says something like
"Private road, no trespassing", or "Private Road, Residents and Guests
Only."
"

I've developed a strong opinion that a privately owned road (or anything
else) should be tagged "ownership=private". Don't confuse the ownership
with the access rights even though we use the same word for them in
English. Them being "often posted..." doesn't mean we can assume they
always are. Please only record data that there is evidence for.

-Alex

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020, 6:05 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:28 AM Jmapb  wrote:
>
> >  - The access -- somewhat common to find a pubic road imported with
> access=private, so if I suspect this I'll leave the tiger:reviewed=no tag
> until access can be confirmed, and add a note or fixme. (It's also quite
> common to find driveways imported as access=private. When surveying, I tend
> to remove the private tag if the driveway isn't gated or signed private,
> since access=private will prevent routing to the house at the end of the
> driveway, sometimes even ending the route on a different residential road
> that's physically closer to the house than the road the driveway's
> connected to.)
> I always thought that driveways to private residences and private roads
> (whether gated or not) should be tagged as access=private.  Often these
> private roads are posted with a sign that says something like "Private
> road, no trespassing", or "Private Road, Residents and Guests Only."
>
> Mike
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes (was: Streaming JOSM -- suggestions?)

[Mike Thompson]

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:28 AM Jmapb  wrote:

>  - The access -- somewhat common to find a pubic road imported with
access=private, so if I suspect this I'll leave the tiger:reviewed=no tag
until access can be confirmed, and add a note or fixme. (It's also quite
common to find driveways imported as access=private. When surveying, I tend
to remove the private tag if the driveway isn't gated or signed private,
since access=private will prevent routing to the house at the end of the
driveway, sometimes even ending the route on a different residential road
that's physically closer to the house than the road the driveway's
connected to.)
I always thought that driveways to private residences and private roads
(whether gated or not) should be tagged as access=private.  Often these
private roads are posted with a sign that says something like "Private
road, no trespassing", or "Private Road, Residents and Guests Only."

Mike
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes (was: Streaming JOSM -- suggestions?)

[Jmapb]

On 7/9/2020 6:48 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

Personally, I think even that much is overkill for deleting tiger:reviewed.
I think that surface, lanes, and traffic controls are things that a
mapper can notice are not mapped, irrespective of the TIGER review
status. There are lots of hand-mapped roads that don't have the
information!

I'm willing to delete the tag when:

(1) I've checked alignment against two sets of aerials, at least one
with the leaves off. (In my case, that's almost always Maxar and NYS
Orthos Online.)
(2) I've added all bridges and culverts that I can identify on
aerials. (Which always leads me down the rabbit hole of mapping the
corresponding waterways)
(2) I've verified that the name matches the state DOT highway map and
the E911 address points.
(3) I've adjusted the road class (TIGER's 'residential' can mean
anything from a tertiary highway to a track!)
(4) I've created route relations if the road has a ref (and removed
the ref from the road's names!)

I don't do 'lanes' very often.  I do 'surface' if the road is
obviously not hard-surfaced (sometimes I can even see the ruts in
aerials), and I do traffic controls only when surveying in person,
which I always do afoot.

I'd like a way to indicate that an intersection is uncontrolled. I've
found myself returning on foot several times to the same intersection
to look for STOP signs that aren't there, because I can't remember
that I've checked it already.

The reason that I'm so lax is that in my part of the state, TIGER is
_horrible_ and mappers are scarce.  I chronically lack time to do very
much about it, although I've at least checked the above information
for all the unreviewed roads in my home county (barring some service
ways that I'm not sure I can access legally). I work intermittently on
a couple of neighbouring counties. There are a lot of service ways
'residential' ways in TIGER that are a mile or two off from the
correct alignment or are otherwise ridiculous. At this point, in my
area, 'tiger:reviewed=no' means 'beware: this road likely is entirely
hallucinatory' and I kill the tag once I've verified that the
information that TIGER provided is correct. The information that TIGER
didn't ordinarily provide, I can leave for others (possibly including
future-Kevin).


I've also been chipping away at TIGER junk in NY state (mostly Ulster
County) and I think my methodology's similar. I try to delete
tiger:reviewed=no if I'm reasonably confident that I've either confirmed
or fixed everything that the TIGER import has asserted about the road in
question, in particular:

 - The road geometry, which is often comically bad. I generally also
add the bridges and culverts (and get lost mapping streams back up into
the mountains) though I've never considered this necessary for deleting
tiger:reviewed=no. (Also, over time I've gotten a little bolder about
simply deleting the roads that don't seem to correspond to anything on
leaf-off satellite, Bing streetside, or the county maps -- especially
the ones that look like spiky stick drawings. I feel that leaving a road
I genuinely believe to be fictional is a disservice to the map.)

 - The highway=* classification -- most common problem I see here is
highway=residential for tracks, driveways, and other service roads (more
rarely residential for what should be secondary or tertiary.)

 - The access -- somewhat common to find a pubic road imported with
access=private, so if I suspect this I'll leave the tiger:reviewed=no
tag until access can be confirmed, and add a note or fixme. (It's also
quite common to find driveways imported as access=private. When
surveying, I tend to remove the private tag if the driveway isn't gated
or signed private, since access=private will prevent routing to the
house at the end of the driveway, sometimes even ending the route on a
different residential road that's physically closer to the house than
the road the driveway's connected to.)

 - The road name -- and this can be a real mess because road signs,
addresses, government maps, and TIGER often disagree. Even two road
signs a mile apart may disagree. I do my best to set name=* and
alt_name=*, and I'll often leave the extra fields from the TIGER import
(name_1, tiger:basename, etc) if they have other variations. Kevin, if
you can give some more details on your name-matching process using E911
and DOT maps, I'd love to learn.

Creating/repairing highway route relations is a special case of name
fixing I guess. I've been lax about removing TIGER's name=State Highway
X etc tags; I'll try to do better there.

Regarding the surface values, at some point Richard Fairhurst made the
specific request that adding surface=* should be part of the TIGER
cleanup, when possible. Personally I only tend to do it when the surface
can be clearly observed and the road in question falls somewhere in the
gap between paved residential and unpaved track. And I also don't
consider this necessary for deleting tiger:reviewed=no.

...Related