Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Nick Hocking 
wrote:
>
>
> Given that the *vast* majority of these (with no name) are completely
> fictional, and even those that aren't, are so out of position and so
> wrongly connected as to render them worse than useless, I believe that
> deletion is the only sensible option.
>

No doubt that way too many highway=residential are fictional, but there are
a number of valid, just never touched ways. Of the ones that are valid they
often need alignment.


Working on a Maproulette Challenge[1] for Washington state here are my
findings so far:
 1. Most of the old logging roads were entered as highway=residential. Even
though I've gotten some pushback, I mostly delete them. If the road looks
like it's a main forest service road, I convert it to either unclassified
or service.

  2. These highway=residential connect to state highways and tertiary roads
that need significant alignment to imagery. Just delete the old data would
still leave hundred of valid roads mis-aligned.

  3. Next to old logging roads, are ways that should be driveways or
service ways. These are easy to fix.

  4. Occasionally there are valid short segments of these original ways.
For those I remove the review=no tag.

  5. Cleaning up Washington State is a long term process. So far about 3%
have been cleared.

One of the positive outcomes is I've learned how to run a geoserver to
serve open data [2] from the state to aid in the cleanup. Ian Dees has
offered to help me migrate off my home server to the US Chapter's account
on Mapbox. The state data far exceeds what's in TIGER. If you are working
in Washington, please do not rely on any TIGER overlays. Simply put, its
crap.

The cleanup effort is a lot of work. I'm always trying to encourage local
mappers to get involve. It is work that is needs to be done to improve the
quality of OSM in the States. I encourage you to work on your state.

Nick - if you do decide to just delete the ways, I would recommend first
communicating with the community on your plans. Your plans should include
how you plan to repair broken routes in a timely manner.


[1] http://maproulette.org/map/2871
[2]
http://tiles.snowandsnow.us/geoserver/gwc/service/tms/1.0.0/WashingtonRoads:all_wash_roads/{zoom}/{x}/{-y}.png

Clifford

-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 8:14 PM, Nick Hocking 
wrote:

> Paul wrote  "Or maybe the unedited original TIGER that's still around
> dropped to
> highway=road.  "
>
>
> Given that the *vast* majority of these (with no name) are completely
> fictional, and even those that aren't, are so out of position and so
> wrongly connected as to render them worse than useless, I believe that
> deletion is the only sensible option.
>


I don't think it's actually fictional in a lot of cases, just *super* rural
and often hard to tell from aerial imagery, at least what I've seen in the
Oklahoma and Kansas area.

However, being able to tell the known-good stuff from a raw unknown in
pretty much any renderer at a glance would be handy.  For example, planning
routes through Death Valley or the Oregon Siskyous.  Both are known to be
low quality deathtraps in TIGER.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Mike N]

On 2/25/2018 9:14 PM, Nick Hocking wrote:
Paul wrote  "Or maybe the unedited original TIGER that's still around 
dropped to

highway=road.  "


Given that the *vast* majority of these (with no name) are completely 
fictional, and even those that aren't, are so out of position and so 
wrongly connected as to render them worse than useless, I believe that 
deletion is the only sensible option.


  Deletion is highly dependent on the quality of TIGER ways in each 
region: many TIGER roads near me were directly derived from government 
data, probably 0.1cm accuracy.   I haven't gone out to collect surface 
type, speed limits, lane configurations confirmed road name and 
therefore not touched them but they're very serviceable for automobile 
navigation.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Albert Pundt]

I concur that deleting unnamed and untouched TIGER ways is the way (no pun
intended) to go. From my experience editing, many rural driveways mapped in
TIGER were converted to highway=service with access=private (though rarely
with service=driveway), though there are many more that are still just
highway=residential. If these are all deleted, it's not like we can't just
go through and map more driveways. (Driveway mapping doesn't often seem to
be much of a focus for a lot of people anyway, though they should still get
mapped eventually.)

For many of these roads around Pennsylvania, I generally set what appear to
be unpaved roads that go and piddle out in someone's field to highway=track,
and roads connecting to houses and buildings to highway=service. Sometimes
I'll fix alignment, but most of the time these fixes are sidelined in favor
of my main editing goal. I don't often go and edit random TIGER roads;
instead, I focus on the numbered routes in my state.

On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Nick Hocking 
wrote:

> Paul wrote  "Or maybe the unedited original TIGER that's still around
> dropped to
> highway=road.  "
>
>
> Given that the *vast* majority of these (with no name) are completely
> fictional, and even those that aren't, are so out of position and so
> wrongly connected as to render them worse than useless, I believe that
> deletion is the only sensible option.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>


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

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Richard Welty]

On 2/22/18 11:57 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> For the US, however, you'd want to do something other than just
>> "downgrading to track".  There are a couple of options I suspect:
> In the US, treating an unpaved road as "track" does not seem right.
> Besides the surface issue, there is a very strong notion of legal status
> between a "road" (often on its own parcel, traffic laws apply)and a
> "track" (just a place where you could drive within some larger lot, and
> often considered that traffic laws do not apply).
a very large percentage of the road network in the corn belt of the US
consists of very well maintained gravel surfaced roads. they are absolutely
not tracks and routinely support heavy farm equipment.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search


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

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 22/02/2018 16:57, Greg Troxel wrote:

For the US, however, you'd want to do something other than just
"downgrading to track".  There are a couple of options I suspect:

In the US, treating an unpaved road as "track" does not seem right.
Besides the surface issue, there is a very strong notion of legal status
between a "road" (often on its own parcel, traffic laws apply)and a
"track" (just a place where you could drive within some larger lot, and
often considered that traffic laws do not apply).

It also seems to me that the typical rendering of track is heavier and
more visually prominent than highway=residential, where for a
general-use map it seems that tracks are lesser ways.


One is to split unpaved roads out as a separate "road type" altogether
(that's how sidewalk and verge are handled as seen at
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15=-24.99273=135.02137
).  The other is to have some sort of modifier (like "bridge", but
different).  that's how "long fords" and embankments at
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15=-24.99958=135.0693
are handled.

I suspect I'm failing to understand something, but it seems that

   highway=residential surface=paved (or no tag, default)
   highway=residential surface=unpaved

should have rendering that is similar in weight, but with some clue that
one is not paved.


Indeed (hence why I wrote 'For the US, however, you'd want to do 
something other than just "downgrading to track"' above).  The "One is 
to split..." comment is about technically how to do it within an OSM 
Carto-like style; I'm not trying to suggest how things should look,



Dashed casing seems plausible.  But I realize this is
very hard as we try to represent more and more in a single map.
A dashed casing's certainly technically doable (though I suspect you'd 
need to fiddle with widths of things to get the visual weight right).  
You may to show tunnels (which use a very fine dashed casing - see e.g. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/51.5046/-0.0500 ) in a different 
way though first.


Best Regards,
Andy


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

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Greg Troxel]

> For the US, however, you'd want to do something other than just
> "downgrading to track".  There are a couple of options I suspect:

In the US, treating an unpaved road as "track" does not seem right.
Besides the surface issue, there is a very strong notion of legal status
between a "road" (often on its own parcel, traffic laws apply)and a
"track" (just a place where you could drive within some larger lot, and
often considered that traffic laws do not apply).

It also seems to me that the typical rendering of track is heavier and
more visually prominent than highway=residential, where for a
general-use map it seems that tracks are lesser ways.

> One is to split unpaved roads out as a separate "road type" altogether
> (that's how sidewalk and verge are handled as seen at
> https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15=-24.99273=135.02137
> ).  The other is to have some sort of modifier (like "bridge", but
> different).  that's how "long fords" and embankments at
> https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15=-24.99958=135.0693
> are handled.

I suspect I'm failing to understand something, but it seems that

  highway=residential surface=paved (or no tag, default)
  highway=residential surface=unpaved

should have rendering that is similar in weight, but with some clue that
one is not paved.  Dashed casing seems plausible.  But I realize this is
very hard as we try to represent more and more in a single map.  I
cannot quibble with your advice to actually try something...




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

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Paul Johnson]

On Feb 21, 2018 23:29, "Nick Hocking"  wrote:

I've always been of the opinion that any of the original TIGER data import
that has not yet been edited and does not have a name tag, should just be
deleted.

Then, and only then can the rural areas begin to be mapped correctly.

In the early days there were  a lot of people who thought that "any data is
better than no data" whereas I believe that "no data" is better than bad
data.

Or maybe the unedited original TIGER that's still around dropped to
highway=road.  Arguably this should have been the default to start with as
"we think there's a road here but not sure exactly what" type thing anyway.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Nick Hocking]

I've always been of the opinion that any of the original TIGER data import
that has not yet been edited and does not have a name tag, should just be
deleted.

Then, and only then can the rural areas begin to be mapped correctly.

In the early days there were  a lot of people who thought that "any data is
better than no data" whereas I believe that "no data" is better than bad
data.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Andy Townsend]

On 19/02/2018 22:03, Clifford Snow wrote:

 Can I steal your road styles?


Sure.

BTW - I can't see the difference between a plain residential and a 
unpaved residential. Unclassified stands right out, but not residential.


That's arguably a bug :)  I added support (downgrading to track) for 
unpaved unclassified (as visible at 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16=-24.99447=135.03725 
) and from memory there's support elsewhere for _gravel_ residential; 
but not unpaved.


For the US, however, you'd want to do something other than just 
"downgrading to track".  There are a couple of options I suspect:


One is to split unpaved roads out as a separate "road type" altogether 
(that's how sidewalk and verge are handled as seen at 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15=-24.99273=135.02137 
).  The other is to have some sort of modifier (like "bridge", but 
different).  that's how "long fords" and embankments at 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15=-24.99958=135.0693 
are handled.


I use a lua style file 
https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua 
to do both of these, but that might not be an acceptable approach to the 
OSM Standard Style if that's your target (for entirely valid reasons to 
do with database reload), so you may have to do the selection just in 
the "project" file and the "roads" files.  With a test such as "unpaved" 
that should be doable though.


The place to start though is to get a working copy of the style 
locally.  I tend to use 
https://switch2osm.org/manually-building-a-tile-server-16-04-2-lts/ for 
that; if you use Docker already then 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/DOCKER.md 
is surely going to be easier.


Once you've got some of your own tiles to play around with I'd suggest 
just experimenting with the various parts in a style (e.g. the "fill", 
the "casing" and "text") that make up a road 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/38988 has a bit of 
info about that, but there have got to be better examples) and seeing 
what effect various changes have.


Best Regards,
Andy


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

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Clifford Snow]

Andy - I've gotten a small server up with just road names, but lacking
other attributes like surface and speed. I'd like to take you up on your
offer with help, with help on styling. Can I steal your road styles? BTW -
I can't see the difference between a plain residential and a unpaved
residential. Unclassified stands right out, but not residential.

Clifford

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 19/02/2018 15:24, Dave Mansfield wrote:
>
>> I agree. To me having paved and unpaved show on the osm.org default
>> render would be the biggest improvement to OSM I can think of.
>>
>>
> If anyone wants any help setting up a server to experiment with options
> for rendering "unpaved" let me know.  I've done similar things - surface is
> a factor in rendering of the style at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/m
> aps/map/map.html#zoom=16=-24.99447=135.03725 for example.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>



-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways (Ben Miller)

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

Chiming in my +1 that county-at-at-time is a good, workable approach for TIGER 
cleanup.  I review the Ito! map's red highways/freeways first, then red major 
roads, then get to orange.  Joe Larson in San Luis Obispo (part of the 
firefighters there) spent a couple of years coordinating this effort there and 
now that county is "all blue."  (I believe he had some official state/county 
data to use, but still it was good, though tedious multi-year-long work).  My 
county (a few to the north) is maybe 75% done.  I've said it here before, 
elephants are best eaten one bite at a time and TIGER review is no exception.

OSM-US still doesn't have a hard consensus about what to do with many/most of 
the "other" TIGER tags (I would like to see this discussion progress), but 
after a good review, please DO delete the tiger_reviewed=no tag.  Delete it, 
don't change its value to yes.  BTW, I agree with the consensus that sometimes 
an actual human on-the-ground survey is the only way to do this sufficient to 
delete the tiger_reviewed=no tag, as Bing or other imagery is most certainly 
not always sufficient.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Andy Townsend]

On 19/02/2018 15:24, Dave Mansfield wrote:

I agree. To me having paved and unpaved show on the osm.org default render 
would be the biggest improvement to OSM I can think of.



If anyone wants any help setting up a server to experiment with options 
for rendering "unpaved" let me know.  I've done similar things - surface 
is a factor in rendering of the style at 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16=-24.99447=135.03725 
for example.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Dave Mansfield]

I agree. To me having paved and unpaved show on the osm.org default render 
would be the biggest improvement to OSM I can think of.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Rihards [mailto:ric...@nakts.net] 
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 9:47 AM
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

On 2018.02.19. 15:28, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
...
> Having good paved/unpaved information will be a massive boost for OSM 
> in comparison to other map providers. We're already partway there. As 
> an

definitely. if somebody with the skills reads this, having that reflected on 
the osm.org default render would be a huge help.
i'd map more surface status if it was more obvious.

> example, try asking Google Maps for bike directions from SF to NYC. It 
> sends you down some really, really unsuitable tracks and I'm not 
> entirely convinced you'd survive the journey. By contrast, 
> cycle.travel (using OSM
> data) gets it pretty much right: occasionally it takes a gravel road 
> unnecessarily but it's pretty much always rideable.
> 
> It would be great if we could become the best map of the rural US just 
> as we are for much of the rest of the world.
> 
> cheers
> Richard--
 Rihards

___
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] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Rihards]

On 2018.02.19. 15:28, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
...
> Having good paved/unpaved information will be a massive boost for OSM in
> comparison to other map providers. We're already partway there. As an

definitely. if somebody with the skills reads this, having that
reflected on the osm.org default render would be a huge help.
i'd map more surface status if it was more obvious.

> example, try asking Google Maps for bike directions from SF to NYC. It sends
> you down some really, really unsuitable tracks and I'm not entirely
> convinced you'd survive the journey. By contrast, cycle.travel (using OSM
> data) gets it pretty much right: occasionally it takes a gravel road
> unnecessarily but it's pretty much always rideable.
> 
> It would be great if we could become the best map of the rural US just as we
> are for much of the rest of the world.
> 
> cheers
> Richard-- 
 Rihards

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

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Richard Fairhurst]

Great to see so much attention being paid to rural TIGER fixup. The majority
of my editing these days is that, and it's a massive but rewarding job.

I put together a view a while back which superimposes unreviewed rural
residentials onto the Strava heatmap. The idea is that you look for
unobscured roads, then go in and fix them. It's at
http://osm.cycle.travel/unreviewed.html .

The "unreviewed" data comes from the cycle.travel rendering database, so
there are a few optimisations (for example, it knows that all State Routes
in NC are paved) and the update frequency is not fast (every month or two).
But it's a good way of finding roads that are regularly used (by cyclists,
at least) and are currently unreviewed.



The one thing I would stress above all is that a surface= key (or
equivalent) is crucial to denote unpaved roads - especially for cyclists and
non-4x4 motorists.

In the developed world in OSM, highway=unclassified and highway=residential
are assumed to be paved roads in the absence of other information. So in
(say) NY State, if you saw a highway=unclassified or highway=residential
without an explicit surface tag, you'd assume it was almost certainly paved.
Now in Kansas most roads are unpaved, but we can't expect people to do
state-specific parsing - that way lies madness. Indeed, very few consumers
do even country-specific parsing.

So absolutely do change rural residentials to highway=unclassified, but add
a surface= tag while you're there. A simple surface=unpaved is better than
nothing, though obviously if you can be more precise with =gravel,
=compacted, =dirt or whatever, that's great. I'd ask people setting up
MapRoulette challenges and the like to incorporate this into their
instructions - thank you!

Having good paved/unpaved information will be a massive boost for OSM in
comparison to other map providers. We're already partway there. As an
example, try asking Google Maps for bike directions from SF to NYC. It sends
you down some really, really unsuitable tracks and I'm not entirely
convinced you'd survive the journey. By contrast, cycle.travel (using OSM
data) gets it pretty much right: occasionally it takes a gravel road
unnecessarily but it's pretty much always rideable.

It would be great if we could become the best map of the rural US just as we
are for much of the rest of the world.

cheers
Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/USA-f5284732.html

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

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Benjamin Miller]

Thanks for the suggestions, everyone!

On 2018.02.19. 00:07, Clifford Snow wrote:
> Running the overpass query looking for user DaveHansenTiger produced
> around 30mb of data. 


There’s definitely plenty of work to do on the DaveHansenTiger ways, but I’d 
really like to include the bot-mode ways as well in the first round. By 
definition, any untouched TIGER ways that have a name are going to fall into 
the bot-mode group, and those seem to me like the most important ways to look 
at.

I’d already started breaking the data up into chunks by county—running the 
DaveHansenTiger query for the whole state should produce a visible blank spot 
in the northwest lower peninsula. I was planning on setting up Maproulette 
tasks for every county in the state and then open them up to some other 
Michigan mappers who might be interested. It’s a shame that Overpass-turbo 
can’t handle this query natively.

Are there any other tools that could process output from Overpass-turbo and get 
me to my goal? The JOSM suggestion is good, but I’d like to make this process 
available to mappers who don’t use JOSM.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Rihards]

On 2018.02.19. 00:07, Clifford Snow wrote:
> 
> 
> I've done a fair amount of TIGER touch-up in Michigan, but there's
> still a lot of work left to be done, and this looks like a great way
> to get a handle on it. One issue: Due to the automated name
> expansion that was done on untouched TIGER ways a few years ago
> (which I think only affected roads in the eastern US?) a lot of
> these ways have bot-mode as their most recent user, rather than
> DaveHansenTiger. (1)
> 
> The catch is that sometimes the name expansion changed the name
> after a human mapper had edited the way, so it wouldn't always be
> valid right to include ways where bot-mode is the most recent
> editor. (2) I think if bot-mode is the most recent editor and the
> way has only two versions, then it should be in effect an untouched
> TIGER way, but I'm not sure how to get Overpass-turbo to pull that
> info out.
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
> 
> Running the overpass query looking for user DaveHansenTiger produced
> around 30mb of data. That's more than enough to keep everyone busy for a
> while.  Overpass-turbo query looking for user bot-mode produced over
> 100mb of data. It would need to be refined some. As you suggest, looking
> only at version 2 might help but I'm not sure you can do that in overpass. 
> 
> There is another way to tackle the problem, one that I've used as well.
> Work on one county at a time. With 83 counties in Michigan the size of
> each county should be reasonable for one or two people to tackle. You
> could either break the county into small chucks using a Tasking Manager
> or just work on one county by your self. JOSM search capabilities mirror
> overpass so you can search for user and version.

recent josm versions also have built-in overpass download support - that
might save a bit of time when downloading with further refinements with
josm search.

> Clifford
> 
> -- 
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us 
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch-- 
 Rihards

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

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Clifford Snow 
wrote:
>
> There is another way to tackle the problem, one that I've used as well.
> Work on one county at a time. With 83 counties in Michigan the size of each
> county should be reasonable for one or two people to tackle. You could
> either break the county into small chucks using a Tasking Manager or just
> work on one county by your self. JOSM search capabilities mirror overpass
> so you can search for user and version.
>

That's currently the approach I'm taking
.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Clifford Snow]

>
>
>
> I've done a fair amount of TIGER touch-up in Michigan, but there's still a
> lot of work left to be done, and this looks like a great way to get a
> handle on it. One issue: Due to the automated name expansion that was done
> on untouched TIGER ways a few years ago (which I think only affected roads
> in the eastern US?) a lot of these ways have bot-mode as their most recent
> user, rather than DaveHansenTiger. (1)
>
> The catch is that sometimes the name expansion changed the name after a
> human mapper had edited the way, so it wouldn't always be valid right to
> include ways where bot-mode is the most recent editor. (2) I think if
> bot-mode is the most recent editor and the way has only two versions, then
> it should be in effect an untouched TIGER way, but I'm not sure how to get
> Overpass-turbo to pull that info out.
>
> Any suggestions?
>

Running the overpass query looking for user DaveHansenTiger produced around
30mb of data. That's more than enough to keep everyone busy for a while.
Overpass-turbo query looking for user bot-mode produced over 100mb of data.
It would need to be refined some. As you suggest, looking only at version 2
might help but I'm not sure you can do that in overpass.

There is another way to tackle the problem, one that I've used as well.
Work on one county at a time. With 83 counties in Michigan the size of each
county should be reasonable for one or two people to tackle. You could
either break the county into small chucks using a Tasking Manager or just
work on one county by your self. JOSM search capabilities mirror overpass
so you can search for user and version.

Clifford

-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Ben Miller]

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:48 AM Clifford Snow 
wrote:

> Does your state have a problem? Run the following overpass query to find
> out:
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/w74 - just replace "Washington"  Need help
> creating a Maproulette Challenge - just ask.
>

I've done a fair amount of TIGER touch-up in Michigan, but there's still a
lot of work left to be done, and this looks like a great way to get a
handle on it. One issue: Due to the automated name expansion that was done
on untouched TIGER ways a few years ago (which I think only affected roads
in the eastern US?) a lot of these ways have bot-mode as their most recent
user, rather than DaveHansenTiger. (1)

The catch is that sometimes the name expansion changed the name after a
human mapper had edited the way, so it wouldn't always be valid right to
include ways where bot-mode is the most recent editor. (2) I think if
bot-mode is the most recent editor and the way has only two versions, then
it should be in effect an untouched TIGER way, but I'm not sure how to get
Overpass-turbo to pull that info out.

Any suggestions?

1. Like this one: https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/17859200
2. For example: https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/17862968
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:06 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:

>> I'd also suggest that leaving tiger:reviewed at no is appropriate if you
>> haven't been able to travel the road/track in question and determine whether
>> it is really an unclassified road or a track, so it remains flagged for
>> further review if someone has the time and proximity to do so.
>>
>
> Agreed on that point. Leaving reviewed=no in place seems like a sensible
> approach to avoid the suggestion of higher data accuracy.

We're unanimous on that part. If you want to try to trace the road, or
change it from 'residential' to 'unclassified' or 'track, I don't mind. But
as I said, in the rural areas around here, it's really impossible to tidy
things up without surveying in person, so the handful of mappers
still need some sort of support for the "things to do" list.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Martijn van Exel]

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Kevin Broderick 
wrote:

> ...
> Downgrading some ways to tracks without doing so to a whole localized
> network creates the appearance of a higher level of data accuracy than
> actually exists, which IMO is more likely to bite someone in the ass than
> having a localized network of roads that are mislabeled. I know it would
> make some of the exploring I've done via on/off-road motorcycle more
> difficult.
>
> I'd also suggest that leaving tiger:reviewed at no is appropriate if you
> haven't been able to travel the road/track in question and determine
> whether it is really an unclassified road or a track, so it remains flagged
> for further review if someone has the time and proximity to do so.
>
>
Agreed on that point. Leaving reviewed=no in place seems like a sensible
approach to avoid the suggestion of higher data accuracy.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Jack Burke]

I've been leaving all the TIGER tags and just changing reviewed from no to 
yes

The main reason I've been leaving them is I don't know who might want to make 
use of that information. 

-jack

-- 
Typos courtesy of fancy auto spell technology

On February 13, 2018 5:13:16 AM EST, Mark Wagner  wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:25:02 -0800
>OSM Volunteer stevea  wrote:
>
>> On Feb 12, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Tod Fitch  wrote:
>
>> > Anyway, what is the current best practice dealing with TIGER tags
>> > once the road has been surveyed and corrected? Remove all TIGER
>> > tags or just the reviewed tag?  
>> 
>> As I am not familiar with the "things you've read," while also
>> wondering myself whether additional TIGER tags (tiger:cfcc,
>> tiger:zip, etc.) should remain or be deleted, I also pose this
>> question to the greater talk-us community.  What DO we do with these
>> additional TIGER tags as we endeavor to "clean up TIGER" in the USA?
>> Is there consensus on a definitive "best practice" for removing or
>> leaving them?  (Consensus is clear that we remove tiger:reviewed=no
>> after we've reviewed the way).
>> 
>> Our wiki https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/TIGER_fixup is silent on this
>> particular issue (of removing or leaving additional tags).  BTW
>> another wiki of ours, https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/TIGER_Edited_Map
>> gives a nice overview/documentation of the Ito map.
>> 
>> We might create a new thread or keep it in this one:  but even as a
>> seasoned TIGER cleanup volunteer, I don't know what to do with
>> additional TIGER tags, and I guarantee everybody reading this that
>> I'm not alone there!
>
>I find the "tiger:county" tag to be useful as a quick way to figure out
>where I am when looking at a changeset or otherwise am zoomed in on the
>map while editing.  "tiger:zip" would be useful when adding addresses
>if
>I could trust it, but it's wrong too often.  The rest of the tags
>aren't useful because either they can be derived from the OSM-relevant
>tags on the road, or they're wrong/outdated.
>
>-- 
>Mark
>
>___
>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] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:25:02 -0800
OSM Volunteer stevea  wrote:

> On Feb 12, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Tod Fitch  wrote:

> > Anyway, what is the current best practice dealing with TIGER tags
> > once the road has been surveyed and corrected? Remove all TIGER
> > tags or just the reviewed tag?  
> 
> As I am not familiar with the "things you've read," while also
> wondering myself whether additional TIGER tags (tiger:cfcc,
> tiger:zip, etc.) should remain or be deleted, I also pose this
> question to the greater talk-us community.  What DO we do with these
> additional TIGER tags as we endeavor to "clean up TIGER" in the USA?
> Is there consensus on a definitive "best practice" for removing or
> leaving them?  (Consensus is clear that we remove tiger:reviewed=no
> after we've reviewed the way).
> 
> Our wiki https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/TIGER_fixup is silent on this
> particular issue (of removing or leaving additional tags).  BTW
> another wiki of ours, https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/TIGER_Edited_Map
> gives a nice overview/documentation of the Ito map.
> 
> We might create a new thread or keep it in this one:  but even as a
> seasoned TIGER cleanup volunteer, I don't know what to do with
> additional TIGER tags, and I guarantee everybody reading this that
> I'm not alone there!

I find the "tiger:county" tag to be useful as a quick way to figure out
where I am when looking at a changeset or otherwise am zoomed in on the
map while editing.  "tiger:zip" would be useful when adding addresses if
I could trust it, but it's wrong too often.  The rest of the tags
aren't useful because either they can be derived from the OSM-relevant
tags on the road, or they're wrong/outdated.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:11:29 -0800
OSM Volunteer stevea  wrote:

> Remember, after you review tags and alignment of TIGER data, REMOVE
> the tiger:reviewed=no tag, don't change its value to yes.

I don't remove the "tiger:reviewed=no" tag unless I've verified the
name and approximate classification of the road, in addition to the
alignment.  I've found too many cases where TIGER has the wrong name
for a road.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Kevin Broderick]

If you can cover an entire area (which I'd define as a swath between the
nearest state highways), I agree that downgrading to track absent other
clues is one reasonable solution. One of my key points is that anyone who's
spent a fair bit of time trying to use GPS maps (of any origin) in
poorly-mapped areas will quickly recognize an area that is clearly an
unverified TIGER import, which signals both (a) that the data is clearly
questionable and (b) that it might be an interesting place to explore to
find out if the roads do go through or not. The questionable map data can
be very useful, especially in conjunction with other data sources, in
attempting to piece together a route through an area that lacks fully
maintained roadways. If a track doesn't actually exist, yes, then it should
certainly be deleted, but I've ridden right-of-ways that were damn near
impossible to see with leaf-on imagery and also found other routes that
looked more road-like via the same imagery impassable, so I definitely
wouldn't delete anything unless you can get there in person and look for
evidence of a roadway, perhaps one that hasn't been maintained in decades
(e.g. Class IV roads in Vermont and Class VI roads in New Hampshire).

Downgrading some ways to tracks without doing so to a whole localized
network creates the appearance of a higher level of data accuracy than
actually exists, which IMO is more likely to bite someone in the ass than
having a localized network of roads that are mislabeled. I know it would
make some of the exploring I've done via on/off-road motorcycle more
difficult.

I'd also suggest that leaving tiger:reviewed at no is appropriate if you
haven't been able to travel the road/track in question and determine
whether it is really an unclassified road or a track, so it remains flagged
for further review if someone has the time and proximity to do so.

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:39 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> I am very happy to see this rekindled interest in TIGER cleanup!
>
> Having done a fair amount of backcountry exploring, I know that there is a
> wide range of road grades and aerial imagery alone is not enough to decide
> how navigable a roads is for a particular type of vehicle. Or, for that
> matter, what its access limitations are. I do agree with Clifford that
> leaving them as poorly aligned 'residential' roads is the worst possible
> situation. Yes, worse than deleting the road altogether. What I usually do
> is mark the road as track without a track grade tag. This seems to me to be
> the most acceptable generic solution for a remote mapper: acknowledging
> that something that could potentially be navigated by a 4 wheeled vehicle
> exists, without being more specific. Local knowledge can then come to the
> rescue to upgrade to unclassified if appropriate.
>
> Another note on the MapRoulette side of things: I would very much
> appreciate your feedback on the new MapRoulette version Clifford linked to.
> Just email me, join #maproulette on slack, or file an issue at
> https://github.com/maproulette/maproulette3/issues.
>
> Martijn
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Kevin Broderick > > wrote:
>>
>>> Please, please, please don't convert rural roads to tracks based on
>>> imagery alone unless it's incredibly clear (and that would exclude anything
>>> with forest cover).
>>>
>>> While many of them should definitely be unclassified, not residential,
>>> downgrading the main rural routes to tracks doesn't match local usage nor
>>> the functional topology of the road network in such places. There are a lot
>>> of USFS and BLM roads around here that are the only way to access
>>> significant areas, that commonly see normal passenger-car traffic and that
>>> can be traveled at reasonable speed in a sedan (or at 30+ MPH with a little
>>> ground clearance and driving skill),. Having these differentiated from true
>>> tracks (where even a stock 4x4 is likely going to be operating at 15 MPH or
>>> less) is incredibly helpful for routing and visual use of the map, and it's
>>> a lot easier to recognize what I'd call "areas of questionable data" when
>>> they haven't been aggressively armchair-mapped. Also, the smoothness key is
>>> really helpful for tracks and impossible to map from orthoimagery.
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, yes, yes.
>>
>> In the rural areas that I can travel to readily, TIGER is downright
>> hallucinatory (and there are few enough mappers that cleanup has been
>> agonizingly slow). TIGER has roads in places where no road is, ever was, or
>> even ever could be. (I've seen one going up a series of cliffs totalling
>> about 2000 feet of ascent!) But even in 'leaves down' images, it's nearly
>> impossible to see the forest roads, much less trace them, and there is
>> definitely a wide variation in quality. Some of them are well-compacted
>> sand and shale, that once they've 

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Martijn van Exel]

I am very happy to see this rekindled interest in TIGER cleanup!

Having done a fair amount of backcountry exploring, I know that there is a
wide range of road grades and aerial imagery alone is not enough to decide
how navigable a roads is for a particular type of vehicle. Or, for that
matter, what its access limitations are. I do agree with Clifford that
leaving them as poorly aligned 'residential' roads is the worst possible
situation. Yes, worse than deleting the road altogether. What I usually do
is mark the road as track without a track grade tag. This seems to me to be
the most acceptable generic solution for a remote mapper: acknowledging
that something that could potentially be navigated by a 4 wheeled vehicle
exists, without being more specific. Local knowledge can then come to the
rescue to upgrade to unclassified if appropriate.

Another note on the MapRoulette side of things: I would very much
appreciate your feedback on the new MapRoulette version Clifford linked to.
Just email me, join #maproulette on slack, or file an issue at
https://github.com/maproulette/maproulette3/issues.

Martijn

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Kevin Broderick 
> wrote:
>
>> Please, please, please don't convert rural roads to tracks based on
>> imagery alone unless it's incredibly clear (and that would exclude anything
>> with forest cover).
>>
>> While many of them should definitely be unclassified, not residential,
>> downgrading the main rural routes to tracks doesn't match local usage nor
>> the functional topology of the road network in such places. There are a lot
>> of USFS and BLM roads around here that are the only way to access
>> significant areas, that commonly see normal passenger-car traffic and that
>> can be traveled at reasonable speed in a sedan (or at 30+ MPH with a little
>> ground clearance and driving skill),. Having these differentiated from true
>> tracks (where even a stock 4x4 is likely going to be operating at 15 MPH or
>> less) is incredibly helpful for routing and visual use of the map, and it's
>> a lot easier to recognize what I'd call "areas of questionable data" when
>> they haven't been aggressively armchair-mapped. Also, the smoothness key is
>> really helpful for tracks and impossible to map from orthoimagery.
>>
>>
> Yes, yes, yes.
>
> In the rural areas that I can travel to readily, TIGER is downright
> hallucinatory (and there are few enough mappers that cleanup has been
> agonizingly slow). TIGER has roads in places where no road is, ever was, or
> even ever could be. (I've seen one going up a series of cliffs totalling
> about 2000 feet of ascent!) But even in 'leaves down' images, it's nearly
> impossible to see the forest roads, much less trace them, and there is
> definitely a wide variation in quality. Some of them are well-compacted
> sand and shale, that once they've been rolled in the spring, support
> driving at 30+ MPH. Others, I wouldn't bring my Subaru on. (Although I've
> been on a few of those in the ancient Ford Explorrer that the Subaru
> replaced.)  Some are gated, some, you simply have to decide for yourself
> that they're not drivable.
>
> The 'dirt roads' range from 'highway=path abandoned:highway=track
> smoothness=impassable' to 'highway=tertiary surface=compacted
> smoothness=intermediate', with no way for an armchair mapper to tell among
> them.
>
> The old road maps that they used to give out at gas stations had, on many
> of these roads, "inquire locally for conditions," which is still good
> advice. The signage may say, "LIMITED PURPOSE SEASONAL-USE ROAD: No
> maintenance November 1-April 15" - but in practice, they'll keep it open
> later in the Autumn unless the snow comes early, and when they open it in
> the spring depends on when the crews can get it clear - it could be weeks
> late if there's been a bad washout or rock slide. There's absolutely no way
> to tag and encode that sort of thing. Inquire locally for conditions.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Kevin Broderick 
wrote:

> Please, please, please don't convert rural roads to tracks based on
> imagery alone unless it's incredibly clear (and that would exclude anything
> with forest cover).
>
> While many of them should definitely be unclassified, not residential,
> downgrading the main rural routes to tracks doesn't match local usage nor
> the functional topology of the road network in such places. There are a lot
> of USFS and BLM roads around here that are the only way to access
> significant areas, that commonly see normal passenger-car traffic and that
> can be traveled at reasonable speed in a sedan (or at 30+ MPH with a little
> ground clearance and driving skill),. Having these differentiated from true
> tracks (where even a stock 4x4 is likely going to be operating at 15 MPH or
> less) is incredibly helpful for routing and visual use of the map, and it's
> a lot easier to recognize what I'd call "areas of questionable data" when
> they haven't been aggressively armchair-mapped. Also, the smoothness key is
> really helpful for tracks and impossible to map from orthoimagery.
>
>
Yes, yes, yes.

In the rural areas that I can travel to readily, TIGER is downright
hallucinatory (and there are few enough mappers that cleanup has been
agonizingly slow). TIGER has roads in places where no road is, ever was, or
even ever could be. (I've seen one going up a series of cliffs totalling
about 2000 feet of ascent!) But even in 'leaves down' images, it's nearly
impossible to see the forest roads, much less trace them, and there is
definitely a wide variation in quality. Some of them are well-compacted
sand and shale, that once they've been rolled in the spring, support
driving at 30+ MPH. Others, I wouldn't bring my Subaru on. (Although I've
been on a few of those in the ancient Ford Explorrer that the Subaru
replaced.)  Some are gated, some, you simply have to decide for yourself
that they're not drivable.

The 'dirt roads' range from 'highway=path abandoned:highway=track
smoothness=impassable' to 'highway=tertiary surface=compacted
smoothness=intermediate', with no way for an armchair mapper to tell among
them.

The old road maps that they used to give out at gas stations had, on many
of these roads, "inquire locally for conditions," which is still good
advice. The signage may say, "LIMITED PURPOSE SEASONAL-USE ROAD: No
maintenance November 1-April 15" - but in practice, they'll keep it open
later in the Autumn unless the snow comes early, and when they open it in
the spring depends on when the crews can get it clear - it could be weeks
late if there's been a bad washout or rock slide. There's absolutely no way
to tag and encode that sort of thing. Inquire locally for conditions.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Clifford Snow]

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:55 AM, Kevin Broderick 
wrote:

> Please, please, please don't convert rural roads to tracks based on
> imagery alone unless it's incredibly clear (and that would exclude anything
> with forest cover).
>
> While many of them should definitely be unclassified, not residential,
> downgrading the main rural routes to tracks doesn't match local usage nor
> the functional topology of the road network in such places. There are a lot
> of USFS and BLM roads around here that are the only way to access
> significant areas, that commonly see normal passenger-car traffic and that
> can be traveled at reasonable speed in a sedan (or at 30+ MPH with a little
> ground clearance and driving skill),. Having these differentiated from true
> tracks (where even a stock 4x4 is likely going to be operating at 15 MPH or
> less) is incredibly helpful for routing and visual use of the map, and it's
> a lot easier to recognize what I'd call "areas of questionable data" when
> they haven't been aggressively armchair-mapped. Also, the smoothness key is
> really helpful for tracks and impossible to map from orthoimagery.
>

Kevin,
I live next door to forested land. I can see forest service roads from my
house, especially after a clear cut operation.  Most are their to aid in
harvesting operations. Once the work is done, the road is unmaintained.
Washington State, particularly western Washington State are full of these
artifacts from the TIGER import. These ways have long since disappeared
from Census TIGER data.  If they belong in OSM, someone should map them.
Let's not leave in these potentially dangerous ways only because they might
be real.   There are a couple of good sources for better data, first the
2017 TIGER layer can help identify if the road is in someone's database. If
its in TIGER, then I'd leave it in OSM. The US Forest Service layer is
another good source. But like Washington State's DNR data, much of it's
unknown.  Of the 925,000 roads in the DNR's database, 84% are in unknown
status. Only 12% are active, and those include state highways. The rest are
abandoned, decommissioned, orphaned, close or not yet built. I did talk to
the DNR about using their data, but they cautioned me against it for the
same reason I'm trying to clean up the old TIGER data - the data is
garbage. If the state doesn't know, then I doubt the USFS is any better.

>
> Even with local knowledge, it's tough to look at some of the local unpaved
> roads on imagery and identify which sections are car-friendly and which
> aren't (and it's often different for different sections of the same road,
> e.g. Crooked Creek Rd. that goes from Carbon County, Wyoming into Carbon
> County, Montana in the Pryor Mountains is arguably a track where it's on
> BLM land and is definitively a good gravel road through USFS land). Most of
> the rest of the roads in the Pryors are either questionable on the track vs
> road border or very clearly tracks. Right now, many are still labeled as
> roads, which is obviously wrong, but downgrading piecemeal without being
> able to correctly classify the whole area makes it much harder to glance at
> the GPS screen and say, "OK, I need to take this with a shaker of salt,
> there's no way there are that many good roads in there"; downgrading some
> but not all would give a false impression of data precision.
>

How does leaving them in help?

>
> Yes, it's unfortunate when people decide to blindly follow their GPS or
> online mapping route without applying common sense, but it's better to have
> data that is obviously low-precision (at least to anyone used to traveling
> in such areas) instead of giving the false impression of higher precision
> than is actually present. It's also misleading if the whole road is marked
> as a track when several (or more) miles are maintained gravel and it then
> turns into a 4x4 track, as someone can easily start driving up the
> maintained gravel, think "Oh, this is what they mean by track—I can drive
> this, no problem" and then end up way up an effective dead end that
> connects through only on a dirt bike, ATV, or 4x4.
>




>
> I'd agree 100% that it would be great to have more mappers in rural areas,
> and I wish I had the time to deal with the data s***show in some of the
> more-remote places around here. I've updated a few things that I've driven
> and could remember how good (or bad) the road was, but unless I remember to
> take georeferenced photos or notes, it can be really hard to remember what
> was passenger-car friendly vs. what was something that I'd prefer to ride
> along in someone else's Subaru for. The problem isn't unique to OSM; none
> of the printed maps I've found are particularly great on the same roads
> (including both Delorme Gazetteers and Benchmark Atlases).
>

The long term fix is more mappers, especially rural, hunters, hikers,
off-road bikers, etc.


> @osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with 

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Mike N]

On 2/12/2018 4:25 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

As I am not familiar with the "things you've read," while also wondering myself whether additional 
TIGER tags (tiger:cfcc, tiger:zip, etc.) should remain or be deleted, I also pose this question to the 
greater talk-us community.  What DO we do with these additional TIGER tags as we endeavor to "clean up 
TIGER" in the USA?  Is there consensus on a definitive "best practice" for removing or leaving 
them?  (Consensus is clear that we remove tiger:reviewed=no after we've reviewed the way).


JOSM has an internal list of TIGER tags that are silently removed on any 
edit - I find tiger:zip and tiger:county to be somewhat useful on 
maproulette challenges so I know where I landed.   There's probably 
another way to get that information though.  I'm not sure if tiger:cfcc 
has any supporters.   There's also this patch, and I don't know if any 
others have been added.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

On Feb 12, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Tod Fitch  wrote:
> Thank you Steve for that ITO link. I was unaware of that and it really is a 
> nice tool to see the overall status of the TIGER fixup in an area.

You are welcome, Tod; I'm happy to share what I know.

> I used to simply delete the the tiger:reviewed tag. But, based on things I’ve 
> read either in the mail lists or elsewhere, more recently I’ve been deleting 
> all the TIGER tags when I’ve surveyed the road and fixed any alignment, etc. 
> issues. I see on the ITO map that changes the color to black whilst simply 
> removing the reviewed tag turns it blue. . .

Yes, and this makes for an interesting view that Ito map provides, as areas 
which had roads non-TIGER added (manually or from another dataset/import) do 
show up as black.  For example, some Native American reservations display as 
all-black in this map, as many areas received no ways with TIGER tagging.

> Anyway, what is the current best practice dealing with TIGER tags once the 
> road has been surveyed and corrected? Remove all TIGER tags or just the 
> reviewed tag?

As I am not familiar with the "things you've read," while also wondering myself 
whether additional TIGER tags (tiger:cfcc, tiger:zip, etc.) should remain or be 
deleted, I also pose this question to the greater talk-us community.  What DO 
we do with these additional TIGER tags as we endeavor to "clean up TIGER" in 
the USA?  Is there consensus on a definitive "best practice" for removing or 
leaving them?  (Consensus is clear that we remove tiger:reviewed=no after we've 
reviewed the way).

Our wiki https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/TIGER_fixup is silent on this particular 
issue (of removing or leaving additional tags).  BTW another wiki of ours, 
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/TIGER_Edited_Map gives a nice overview/documentation 
of the Ito map.

We might create a new thread or keep it in this one:  but even as a seasoned 
TIGER cleanup volunteer, I don't know what to do with additional TIGER tags, 
and I guarantee everybody reading this that I'm not alone there!

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

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Tod Fitch]

> On Feb 12, 2018, at 12:11 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea 
>  wrote:
> 
> Clifford Snow  wrote
>> How many of the TIGER imported streets are still untouched?
> 
> Thanks for rallying us with this great thrust forward, Clifford, with 
> excellent Challenges, resources and direction.  I'd like to add one more tool 
> I use for TIGER cleanup, the Ito! map at:  
> http://product.itoworld.com/map/162?lon=-122=47=9=true
> 
> This can be slow to load, and subsequent changes you make take several days 
> to a couple of weeks to re-render, but over a longer-term (months to years) I 
> have found it to be a valuable tool.  When a "divide and conquer" strategy is 
> applied (for example, a county or sub-area of a county), progress becomes 
> visually rewarding.  Seattle, largely dark blue (great!) or light blue (OK 
> for now) looks better-than-average, as you note and as would be expected.  
> However, as soon as you drop out of the urban megalopolis, things get orange 
> (fix me) and red (fix me FIRST!) rather quickly.  This helps prioritize what 
> TIGER data need attention sooner, like right now!
> 
> Remember, after you review tags and alignment of TIGER data, REMOVE the 
> tiger:reviewed=no tag, don't change its value to yes.
> 

Thank you Steve for that ITO link. I was unaware of that and it really is a 
nice tool to see the overall status of the TIGER fixup in an area.

I used to simply delete the the tiger:reviewed tag. But, based on things I’ve 
read either in the mail lists or elsewhere, more recently I’ve been deleting 
all the TIGER tags when I’ve surveyed the road and fixed any alignment, etc. 
issues. I see on the ITO map that changes the color to black whilst simply 
removing the reviewed tag turns it blue. . .

Anyway, what is the current best practice dealing with TIGER tags once the road 
has been surveyed and corrected? Remove all TIGER tags or just the reviewed tag?

Thanks!
Tod



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

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

Clifford Snow  wrote
> How many of the TIGER imported streets are still untouched?

Thanks for rallying us with this great thrust forward, Clifford, with excellent 
Challenges, resources and direction.  I'd like to add one more tool I use for 
TIGER cleanup, the Ito! map at:  
http://product.itoworld.com/map/162?lon=-122=47=9=true

This can be slow to load, and subsequent changes you make take several days to 
a couple of weeks to re-render, but over a longer-term (months to years) I have 
found it to be a valuable tool.  When a "divide and conquer" strategy is 
applied (for example, a county or sub-area of a county), progress becomes 
visually rewarding.  Seattle, largely dark blue (great!) or light blue (OK for 
now) looks better-than-average, as you note and as would be expected.  However, 
as soon as you drop out of the urban megalopolis, things get orange (fix me) 
and red (fix me FIRST!) rather quickly.  This helps prioritize what TIGER data 
need attention sooner, like right now!

Remember, after you review tags and alignment of TIGER data, REMOVE the 
tiger:reviewed=no tag, don't change its value to yes.

I don't want to pick a year as to when the US will "finish fixing TIGER," it 
might be decades.  But that's OK, it will be worth it, as our map gets better 
every day.

Happy mapping,
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Max Erickson]

In National Forests, USFS road data usually has sensible information
about the suitability of roads for general traffic.

There's an imagery layer showing the Forest Service data:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/26099

I prefer opening transformed data as a layer in JOSM. Here's the
script I use to translate the data:

https://gist.github.com/maxerickson/32ca41e72458b12a5734f97f75800448

Followed by a command like

ogr2ogr /share/gis/extracts/test.shp /share/gis/USFSOsm/ -clipsrc
-85.2 46.2 -84.5 46.6

to clip out an area of interest. The advantage is not having to
remember a second set of visualizations for the various road features.


Max

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

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Kevin Broderick]

Please, please, please don't convert rural roads to tracks based on imagery
alone unless it's incredibly clear (and that would exclude anything with
forest cover).

While many of them should definitely be unclassified, not residential,
downgrading the main rural routes to tracks doesn't match local usage nor
the functional topology of the road network in such places. There are a lot
of USFS and BLM roads around here that are the only way to access
significant areas, that commonly see normal passenger-car traffic and that
can be traveled at reasonable speed in a sedan (or at 30+ MPH with a little
ground clearance and driving skill),. Having these differentiated from true
tracks (where even a stock 4x4 is likely going to be operating at 15 MPH or
less) is incredibly helpful for routing and visual use of the map, and it's
a lot easier to recognize what I'd call "areas of questionable data" when
they haven't been aggressively armchair-mapped. Also, the smoothness key is
really helpful for tracks and impossible to map from orthoimagery.

Even with local knowledge, it's tough to look at some of the local unpaved
roads on imagery and identify which sections are car-friendly and which
aren't (and it's often different for different sections of the same road,
e.g. Crooked Creek Rd. that goes from Carbon County, Wyoming into Carbon
County, Montana in the Pryor Mountains is arguably a track where it's on
BLM land and is definitively a good gravel road through USFS land). Most of
the rest of the roads in the Pryors are either questionable on the track vs
road border or very clearly tracks. Right now, many are still labeled as
roads, which is obviously wrong, but downgrading piecemeal without being
able to correctly classify the whole area makes it much harder to glance at
the GPS screen and say, "OK, I need to take this with a shaker of salt,
there's no way there are that many good roads in there"; downgrading some
but not all would give a false impression of data precision.

Yes, it's unfortunate when people decide to blindly follow their GPS or
online mapping route without applying common sense, but it's better to have
data that is obviously low-precision (at least to anyone used to traveling
in such areas) instead of giving the false impression of higher precision
than is actually present. It's also misleading if the whole road is marked
as a track when several (or more) miles are maintained gravel and it then
turns into a 4x4 track, as someone can easily start driving up the
maintained gravel, think "Oh, this is what they mean by track—I can drive
this, no problem" and then end up way up an effective dead end that
connects through only on a dirt bike, ATV, or 4x4.

I'd agree 100% that it would be great to have more mappers in rural areas,
and I wish I had the time to deal with the data s***show in some of the
more-remote places around here. I've updated a few things that I've driven
and could remember how good (or bad) the road was, but unless I remember to
take georeferenced photos or notes, it can be really hard to remember what
was passenger-car friendly vs. what was something that I'd prefer to ride
along in someone else's Subaru for. The problem isn't unique to OSM; none
of the printed maps I've found are particularly great on the same roads
(including both Delorme Gazetteers and Benchmark Atlases).

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Clifford Snow 
wrote:

> How many of the TIGER imported streets are still untouched? Looking at
> typical urban area with a high number of OSM contributors the your answer
> might be very few. Seattle for example only has one street left, and
> unnamed street in the far south of Seattle. King County, just under 6,000
> sq km, has 292 untouched ways. Extrapolating the results to Washington
> State, with 39 counties, you expect to see somewhere around 11,000
> untouched ways. It's almost three times that number.
>
> Washington State today has over 30,000 untouched highway=residential, far
> more than what you would might expect from looking at King County. Many of
> the untouched ways are located in areas known for timber harvest, most
> likely forest service roads (at best highway=unclassified, or
> highway=tracks, or not even there) and many others are service roads to
> farms and homes.
>
> Because King County has by far the largest population of active mappers,
> it has touched just about every street in the county. Even the more remote
> areas of eastern King County which is popular with hikers.
>
> Utah, a far less populated state has over 7,500 untouched ways. (But an
> absolutely gorgeous state, second only to Washington State )
>
> Western states may be more susceptible because of the number of forest
> service roads. All states likely have the problem of ways classified as
> residential when they should be service roads.
>
> Martijn van Exel and I have created a couple of Maproulette tasks to fix
> these ways. It's dangerous to leave them. Having