Re: [Talk-us] TIGER fixup and mapping more
Richard Weait schrieb: Larger cleanups can be imposing at first glance. Other mappers will understand that a single mapper can't do everything at once, so you shouldn't be criticized if you fix a few things but not others. After having spent another vacation in the US (in Northern California this time), I started wondering if there should be a mass edit to switch all the highway=residential (or other highway values set en masse and mostly wrong) that are from TIGER imports and still on v1 objects to highway=road instead. The reason for this is that we have a ton of dirt/gravel roads through the woods that are mapped as residential and therefore are highly misleading for both routing services as well as people looking at a map and trying to figure out which way to go manually. Note that this is just an idea, and I wouldn't be the one actually doing this as I have no ideas about how to do mass edits in a good way. I just wanted to bring this up with the US community. AFAIK, the highway=road tag for unspecified road, needing someone to review and switch to correct classification did not exist back when those imports were made initially and would be the right choice for such imports nowadays. Robert Kaiser ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER fixup and mapping more
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: Richard Weait schrieb: Larger cleanups can be imposing at first glance. Other mappers will understand that a single mapper can't do everything at once, so you shouldn't be criticized if you fix a few things but not others. After having spent another vacation in the US (in Northern California this time), I started wondering if there should be a mass edit to switch all the highway=residential (or other highway values set en masse and mostly wrong) that are from TIGER imports and still on v1 objects to highway=road instead. I like that idea, especially given the high number of obviously not urban roads that would be better off tagged as track or unclassified getting counted as residential (a more urban classification). I'd be willing to extend this idea to any way tagged tiger:reviewed=no still, regardless of version number. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER fixup and mapping more
I like this idea. That would encourage more people to TIGER-review streets, as highway=road shows up pretty ugly on Mapnik, and people like getting rid of ugly. What would be the drawbacks of doing this? It seems like there would be some but I can't think of any. On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: Richard Weait schrieb: Larger cleanups can be imposing at first glance. Other mappers will understand that a single mapper can't do everything at once, so you shouldn't be criticized if you fix a few things but not others. After having spent another vacation in the US (in Northern California this time), I started wondering if there should be a mass edit to switch all the highway=residential (or other highway values set en masse and mostly wrong) that are from TIGER imports and still on v1 objects to highway=road instead. The reason for this is that we have a ton of dirt/gravel roads through the woods that are mapped as residential and therefore are highly misleading for both routing services as well as people looking at a map and trying to figure out which way to go manually. Note that this is just an idea, and I wouldn't be the one actually doing this as I have no ideas about how to do mass edits in a good way. I just wanted to bring this up with the US community. AFAIK, the highway=road tag for unspecified road, needing someone to review and switch to correct classification did not exist back when those imports were made initially and would be the right choice for such imports nowadays. Robert Kaiser __**_ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-ushttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER fixup and mapping more
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote: On 7/12/2012 11:26 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: I like that idea, especially given the high number of obviously not urban roads that would be better off tagged as track or unclassified getting counted as residential (a more urban classification). I'd be willing to extend this idea to any way tagged tiger:reviewed=no still, regardless of version number. This seems like pointing a sledge hammer at an anthill. We would actually consider changing 99% of the roads, some of which have been reviewed for name, type, and alignment but not for distance (I have done many of these), just to address a 1% problem? I would hazard to guess that this is closer to being a 85% problem, given the sheer scale of the country and how few roads are actually urban in nature or paved at all. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER fixup and mapping more
On 7/12/2012 11:43 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: I was wondering if something likehttp://frontdoor.cloudapp.net/ might be a fun solution. Present some aerial imagery, the OSM data, and say is this a track or a road?. Kind of like HotOrNot for the OSM generation. (For extra efficiency, have a button for it's a track and in fact_everything_ on this view is a track... and a link to open it in P2 (or whatever) for the really curious.) I like the idea of this type of app in general. However armchair classification of tracks locally here will often fail, even with the improved Bing imagery. They often curve about while being 90% obscured by tree cover, and cannot be distinguished from paved roads. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?
I'm trying to get a better understanding of the railway=abandoned tag and see what the community thinks about it. It seems that there are a handful of railroad enthusiast users that are systematically adding current and former railways into OSM, and in some cases re-adding railways that I have removed. I have been operating under the assumption that if a physical feature is not currently there, then it should be deleted. Consider the following example area (Manchester airport MHT): http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.94312lon=-71.4307zoom=16layers=M A few years ago the runway was shorter and New Hampshire Route 28 was more straight. Sometime before that there was a railroad running right through where the airport is now. For the case of the road and any buildings that were removed due to runway expansion, these are not in OSM, and even if we could find some record of them, I wouldn't think that anyone would add them. However, for the case of the railroad, there is a Way in OSM tagged railway=abandoned where the railroad used to be. What makes railroads a special case? Do we really want a bunch of railway=abandoned Ways running directly through newly constructed runways, buildings, roads, parking lots, etc? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?
On 07/12/2012 12:37 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote: What makes railroads a special case? Do we really want a bunch of railway=abandoned Ways running directly through newly constructed runways, buildings, roads, parking lots, etc? I'm of two minds. A lot of my map projects relate to the back country. There, an abandoned railway or abandoned highway is likely still to be graded reasonably and present a hikable path. So an outdoorsperson is likely to want these on the map in places where other features haven't obliterated them. But I do find it annoying to see residential streets with labels designating a car-line that went out of business eighty years ago. I suspect this is yet another urban vs. rural concern, like highway=residential as opposed to highway=road. We seem to trip over those with some regularity. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?
Peter Dobratz wrote: I'm trying to get a better understanding of the railway=abandoned tag and see what the community thinks about it. FWIW there's been a similar discussion on talk-gb recently. The consensus seems to be railway=abandoned for railways where there's still some physical trace (and you can see it from the air includes that!), and railway=dismantled used fairly sparingly where there's no trace left. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/railway-abandoned-and-mapping-things-that-are-not-there-any-more-tp5716334p5716341.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Peter Dobratz wrote: I'm trying to get a better understanding of the railway=abandoned tag and see what the community thinks about it. FWIW there's been a similar discussion on talk-gb recently. The consensus seems to be railway=abandoned for railways where there's still some physical trace (and you can see it from the air includes that!), and railway=dismantled used fairly sparingly where there's no trace left. Yeah I have no problem having railway=abandoned ways going through wheat fields. As has been pointed out, you can still see traces even 20 years after the last train rolled through. But as soon as it hits an area with other objects that conflict with it, I usually hack it off and delete it outright. I had a friend complain to me about an abandoned railway running right through the middle of a mall in his city so I told him to just nuke it. Toby ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?
On 7/12/2012 12:37 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote: It seems that there are a handful of railroad enthusiast users that are systematically adding current and former railways into OSM, and in some cases re-adding railways that I have removed. I have been operating under the assumption that if a physical feature is not currently there, then it should be deleted. That issue came up here also. I let him go since it looked like most of the work was quality and he did a bit of fixup with current physical tracks. We agreed that the abandoned railways could be deleted where they have been bulldozed over or buildings built over them. So they are present, and don't hurt anything. None of the 'standard maps' will bother to render them. A railway map could use them if it needed to. I delete them if they go through current buildings or parking lots also. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?
I think it's important to separate there's a way in the db and there's a line on some render. Personally, I want to see old railway lines on the map. I find there's almost always evidence along the line, but not always at some point. So I think we need tags that are more like the USGS maps, where there is active out of service abandoned: tracks old railroad grade historical only (not shown on USGS) so renders can choose to show 'old railroad grade' or 'abandoned tracks' but not historical-only. So let's spiff up the render, not lose the info from the db. pgpoq5zXjrEiN.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?
Mike N. wrote: So they are present, and don't hurt anything. None of the 'standard maps' will bother to render them. A railway map could use them if it needed to. I delete them if they go through current buildings or parking lots also. Yes, that's a sensible attitude. I think it's also worth noting that what's on the ground is slightly in the eye of the beholder. I'm not really a railway archaeologist, but I do know quite a bit about old canals. There are places, even in redeveloped town centres, where the canal seems to be obliterated to the untrained eye; but if you know what you're looking for, the clues are there to see, even amongst the car parks. In those circumstances, a =dismantled tag makes sense. I guess one railway equivalent is where a bridge across a river has been removed. It's not railway=abandoned, it's clearly more than that. But there are usually bridge abutments still standing on either side, maybe even some stonework left in the river. Again, railway=dismantled seems appropriate there. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/railway-abandoned-and-mapping-things-that-are-not-there-any-more-tp5716334p5716356.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER fixup and mapping more
On 7/12/2012 11:27 AM, Clay Smalley wrote: I like this idea. That would encourage more people to TIGER-review streets, as highway=road shows up pretty ugly on Mapnik, and people like getting rid of ugly. What would be the drawbacks of doing this? It seems like there would be some but I can't think of any. The problem is that you can easily see that any old subdivision street is residential on an aerial, but you shouldn't remove tiger:reviewed unless you've verified the name. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER fixup and mapping more
Hi, On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote: On 7/12/2012 11:26 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: I like that idea, especially given the high number of obviously not urban roads that would be better off tagged as track or unclassified getting counted as residential (a more urban classification). I'd be willing to extend this idea to any way tagged tiger:reviewed=no still, regardless of version number. This seems like pointing a sledge hammer at an anthill. We would actually consider changing 99% of the roads, some of which have been reviewed for name, type, and alignment but not for distance (I have done many of these), just to address a 1% problem? I would hazard to guess that this is closer to being a 85% problem, given the sheer scale of the country and how few roads are actually urban in nature or paved at all. As per June 13, about 44% of the ways in the US have tiger:cfcc=A41 (or 79% of ways that have the tiger:cfcc tag): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AkZlPbUaMXdGdFE3TEhkOWw0RkRSOUg1VndxWjlfSEE -- martijn van exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote: I am of course one mapper who's been mapping former railways. (Russ Nelson is another.) There is certainly value in seeing how the current disconnected bits of railway infrastructure used to connect. I've also mapped the occasional highway=abandoned, e.g. where the old road was cut off by the Interstate. NE2, So after I bring up that I don't think railways should be drawn through buildings, and most people agree with me on that, you decide to do this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.762886lon=-71.430509zoom=18layers=M Does 86 Central Street, Hudson, NH have remnants of a railroad running through their living room? No, because that's ridiculous. Maybe you could hold off dumping stuff on top of work that I've done while we continue to discuss the matter. Does anyone have any objection to reverting the following changesets?: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12202043 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12186087 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12191431 Thanks, Peter ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?
On 7/12/2012 11:43 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote: NE2, So after I bring up that I don't think railways should be drawn through buildings, and most people agree with me on that, you decide to do this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.762886lon=-71.430509zoom=18layers=M Does 86 Central Street, Hudson, NH have remnants of a railroad running through their living room? No, because that's ridiculous. Is it on the former route of a railway? Of course. And that's what railway=abandoned has meant since I joined OSM. Maybe you could hold off dumping stuff on top of work that I've done while we continue to discuss the matter. Back at ya. Don't delete something that doesn't interest you. Does anyone have any objection to reverting the following changesets?: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12202043 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12186087 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12191431 For the record, I do object. And the fact that you would consider killing a fly with a sledgehammer is disturbing. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?
On 7/12/2012 10:45 PM, Mike N wrote: On 7/12/2012 4:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: This is a strawman, since there will rarely be more than one former line across a small area. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone wants to map all the former second tracks, sidings, and such, especially where they've changed over the years. That's just what the local mapper was doing. I ended up deleting a bunch of old spurs that wound through the city and passed through buildings. I can buy former spurs, though I'll usually only map them if they're significant in length or history or there are still remnants. Was this mapper adding multiple tracks on the same right-of-way? A single abandoned track would be no more of a problem than a power line. Or an underground sewer line. Or an administrative boundary. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
