Re: [OSM-talk] Duplicate TIGER ways along county lines
When I'm fixing these, I just delete one of the ways in OSM and make sure that all the other connections are correct. It really doesn't matter about the tiger tags. As I don't know where there are county boundaries, I've just been leaving them as is (though occasionally been having to move them out of the way). Shaun On 24 Aug 2009, at 03:51, dasdje...@comcast.net wrote: Good evening, I have been editing the map around Denver, CO, but so far have avoided fixing duplicate ways straddling county lines. I.e., one physical way is represented by two ways, one for each county. For a correct and visually pleasing map, ease in joining intersecting ways, etc., I think it would be better to have only a single merged way on the map corresponding to the lone physical way. Will that agree with OSM standards? If it will, some tags and values may have to be modified. Assuming merging the ways in this manner is acceptable: How necessary is it to preserve left and right county names (the county line is present and should have this information)? How necessary is it to preserve left and right zip codes in the way data? (These are frequently inaccurate, and I would prefer not to have to research them). Should the two different TLIDs be combined in the TLID tag and separated with a semi-colon? Some county lines are conveniently located along divided highways. In these cases, I have been simply migrating each of the two ways to the correct side of the median while paying careful attention to the way’s direction and the various left and right tags. Thanks for any input. Dave J ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Duplicate TIGER ways along county lines
Good evening, I have been editing the map around Denver, CO, but so far have avoided fixing duplicate ways straddling county lines. I.e., one physical way is represented by two ways, one for each county. For a correct and visually pleasing map, ease in joining intersecting ways, etc., I think it would be better to have only a single merged way on the map corresponding to the lone physical way. Will that agree with OSM standards? If it will, some tags and values may have to be modified. Assuming merging the ways in this manner is acceptable: How necessary is it to preserve left and right county names (the county line is present and should have this information)? How necessary is it to preserve left and right zip codes in the way data? (These are frequently inaccurate, and I would prefer not to have to research them). Should the two different TLIDs be combined in the TLID tag and separated with a semi-colon? Some county lines are conveniently located along divided highways. In these cases, I have been simply migrating each of the two ways to the correct side of the median while paying careful attention to the way’s direction and the various left and right tags. Thanks for any input. Dave J ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Duplicate TIGER ways along county lines
don't waste too much time trying to make sense of broken data. fix it in the best possible way and delete tags which don't make sense anymore. time of mappers is better spent on fixing the data instead of fiddle around with nearly useless tags. osm data is dynamic everyone can edit everything and simply for this reason even the tlid tag is useless as an anchor. as soon as a significant amount of changes has been done any application or new import must work on the coordinates of nodes and ways. this essentially what is done in canada imports with roadmatcher. just my 2 ct -- apollinaris On 23 Aug 2009, at 19:51 , dasdje...@comcast.net wrote: Good evening, I have been editing the map around Denver, CO, but so far have avoided fixing duplicate ways straddling county lines. I.e., one physical way is represented by two ways, one for each county. For a correct and visually pleasing map, ease in joining intersecting ways, etc., I think it would be better to have only a single merged way on the map corresponding to the lone physical way. Will that agree with OSM standards? If it will, some tags and values may have to be modified. Assuming merging the ways in this manner is acceptable: How necessary is it to preserve left and right county names (the county line is present and should have this information)? How necessary is it to preserve left and right zip codes in the way data? (These are frequently inaccurate, and I would prefer not to have to research them). Should the two different TLIDs be combined in the TLID tag and separated with a semi-colon? Some county lines are conveniently located along divided highways. In these cases, I have been simply migrating each of the two ways to the correct side of the median while paying careful attention to the way’s direction and the various left and right tags. Thanks for any input. Dave J ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Duplicate TIGER ways along county lines
--- On Mon, 24/8/09, dasdje...@comcast.net dasdje...@comcast.net wrote: How necessary is it to preserve left and right zip codes in the way data? (These are frequently inaccurate, and I would prefer not to have to research them). It shouldn't be necessary to keep county, state, country or zip/post codes in any ways. This sort of meta information is best described by boundary=administrative relations instead, all the nodes and ways inside that area can then be derived from the boundary information. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
