Re: [Talk-us] Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes (was: Streaming JOSM -- suggestions?)
On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 6:05 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > > - The access -- somewhat common to find a pubic road imported with > > access=private, so if I suspect this I'll leave the tiger:reviewed=no tag > > until access can be confirmed, and add a note or fixme. (It's also quite > > common to find driveways imported as access=private. When surveying, I tend > > to remove the private tag if the driveway isn't gated or signed private, > > since access=private will prevent routing to the house at the end of the > > driveway, sometimes even ending the route on a different residential road > > that's physically closer to the house than the road the driveway's > > connected to.) > I always thought that driveways to private residences and private roads > (whether gated or not) should be tagged as access=private. Often these > private roads are posted with a sign that says something like "Private road, > no trespassing", or "Private Road, Residents and Guests Only." One thing to watch out for in the countryside is that there are often streets signed 'Xxx Drive // PRIVATE' meaning that the road is privately maintained, rather than meaning 'no trespassing.' But here I think that the importance of the distinction is overblown. I strongly suspect: (1) People don't ordinarily want to be routed down these privately-maintained roads (which are usually, in effect, driveways that happen to serve more than one establishment) unless they have business with some establishment on the road. (2) Delivery drivers use routers that allow for access to private drives to deliver to the associated residence. (In effect, the person who ordered the goods for delivery has issued an invitation to the carrier.) and hence, the public/private distinction for service ways falls in my mental model under, 'don't worry about it.' -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes (was: Streaming JOSM -- suggestions?)
> > On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 6:12 PM Alex Hennings > wrote: > ... > I've developed a strong opinion that a privately owned road (or anything > else) should be tagged "ownership=private". Don't confuse the ownership > with the access rights even though we use the same word for them in > English. Them being "often posted..." doesn't mean we can assume they > always are. Please only record data that there is evidence for. > I just want to second this statement. I'm quite frustrated that the TIGER import added access=private to privately maintained roads that should instead be tagged with ownership=private. This broad-scale mis-tagging suggests to later mappers that this is the way to tag privately maintained roads, leading to overly restrictive access restrictions that don't match reality. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)
On 7/12/2020 6:03 PM, Mike Thompson wrote: On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:28 AM Jmapb mailto:jm...@gmx.com>> wrote: > The access -- somewhat common to find a pubic road imported with access=private, so if I suspect this I'll leave the > tiger:reviewed=no tag until access can be confirmed, and add a note or fixme. (It's also quite common to find driveways > imported as access=private. When surveying, I tend to remove the private tag if the driveway isn't gated or signed > private, since access=private will prevent routing to the house at the end of the driveway, sometimes even ending the > route on a different residential road that's physically closer to the house than the road the driveway's connected to.) I always thought that driveways to private residences and private roads (whether gated or not) should be tagged as access=private. Often these private roads are posted with a sign that says something like "Private road, no trespassing", or "Private Road, Residents and Guests Only." Mike As I said, I tend to remove access=private if I DON'T see any barrier or signed restriction during a survey. If I see see "private" or "no trespassing" I certainly wouldn't. This is consistent with OSM verifiability standards. I feel the most appropriate default tag for driveways would be access=destination, but since generally they are short dead ends it rarely seems necessary. But there do seem to be many driveways tagged access=private. Some from TIGER (which certainly can't be trusted) and some from humans, sometimes using Facebook's RapiD. Here's an example of how access=private on a driveway causes the routing problem I'm talking about: https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car=41.9288%2C-74.0024%3B41.9157%2C-74.0290#map=16/41.9168/-74.0237=N There's no access to the house at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263869602 (forgive the poor building mapping, not mine! ;) from Linderman Avenue. The correct is approach is from the driveway https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/791633657 but that driveway was marked as private by the mapper who added it (one of Amazon's paid mappers, using RapiD.) The source list (always the same long list of sources with the Amazon mappers) includes Bing Streetside but I don't see any reason that this driveway should be marked private: https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=fd2b22c5-aaed-46f5-8128-a64aaf15c84b=41.91594~-74.029559=19=106.782906=-7.023267=x=z.0=2=2=S00027 If I surveyed a location like this and deemed it appropriate to remove the access=private tag from the driveway, I believe that would benefit the map. Jason ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes (was: Streaming JOSM -- suggestions?)
Regarding: " Often these private roads are posted with a sign that says something like "Private road, no trespassing", or "Private Road, Residents and Guests Only." " I've developed a strong opinion that a privately owned road (or anything else) should be tagged "ownership=private". Don't confuse the ownership with the access rights even though we use the same word for them in English. Them being "often posted..." doesn't mean we can assume they always are. Please only record data that there is evidence for. -Alex On Sun, Jul 12, 2020, 6:05 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:28 AM Jmapb wrote: > > > - The access -- somewhat common to find a pubic road imported with > access=private, so if I suspect this I'll leave the tiger:reviewed=no tag > until access can be confirmed, and add a note or fixme. (It's also quite > common to find driveways imported as access=private. When surveying, I tend > to remove the private tag if the driveway isn't gated or signed private, > since access=private will prevent routing to the house at the end of the > driveway, sometimes even ending the route on a different residential road > that's physically closer to the house than the road the driveway's > connected to.) > I always thought that driveways to private residences and private roads > (whether gated or not) should be tagged as access=private. Often these > private roads are posted with a sign that says something like "Private > road, no trespassing", or "Private Road, Residents and Guests Only." > > Mike > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes (was: Streaming JOSM -- suggestions?)
On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:28 AM Jmapb wrote: > - The access -- somewhat common to find a pubic road imported with access=private, so if I suspect this I'll leave the tiger:reviewed=no tag until access can be confirmed, and add a note or fixme. (It's also quite common to find driveways imported as access=private. When surveying, I tend to remove the private tag if the driveway isn't gated or signed private, since access=private will prevent routing to the house at the end of the driveway, sometimes even ending the route on a different residential road that's physically closer to the house than the road the driveway's connected to.) I always thought that driveways to private residences and private roads (whether gated or not) should be tagged as access=private. Often these private roads are posted with a sign that says something like "Private road, no trespassing", or "Private Road, Residents and Guests Only." Mike ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes (was: Streaming JOSM -- suggestions?)
On 7/9/2020 6:48 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: Personally, I think even that much is overkill for deleting tiger:reviewed. I think that surface, lanes, and traffic controls are things that a mapper can notice are not mapped, irrespective of the TIGER review status. There are lots of hand-mapped roads that don't have the information! I'm willing to delete the tag when: (1) I've checked alignment against two sets of aerials, at least one with the leaves off. (In my case, that's almost always Maxar and NYS Orthos Online.) (2) I've added all bridges and culverts that I can identify on aerials. (Which always leads me down the rabbit hole of mapping the corresponding waterways) (2) I've verified that the name matches the state DOT highway map and the E911 address points. (3) I've adjusted the road class (TIGER's 'residential' can mean anything from a tertiary highway to a track!) (4) I've created route relations if the road has a ref (and removed the ref from the road's names!) I don't do 'lanes' very often. I do 'surface' if the road is obviously not hard-surfaced (sometimes I can even see the ruts in aerials), and I do traffic controls only when surveying in person, which I always do afoot. I'd like a way to indicate that an intersection is uncontrolled. I've found myself returning on foot several times to the same intersection to look for STOP signs that aren't there, because I can't remember that I've checked it already. The reason that I'm so lax is that in my part of the state, TIGER is _horrible_ and mappers are scarce. I chronically lack time to do very much about it, although I've at least checked the above information for all the unreviewed roads in my home county (barring some service ways that I'm not sure I can access legally). I work intermittently on a couple of neighbouring counties. There are a lot of service ways 'residential' ways in TIGER that are a mile or two off from the correct alignment or are otherwise ridiculous. At this point, in my area, 'tiger:reviewed=no' means 'beware: this road likely is entirely hallucinatory' and I kill the tag once I've verified that the information that TIGER provided is correct. The information that TIGER didn't ordinarily provide, I can leave for others (possibly including future-Kevin). I've also been chipping away at TIGER junk in NY state (mostly Ulster County) and I think my methodology's similar. I try to delete tiger:reviewed=no if I'm reasonably confident that I've either confirmed or fixed everything that the TIGER import has asserted about the road in question, in particular: - The road geometry, which is often comically bad. I generally also add the bridges and culverts (and get lost mapping streams back up into the mountains) though I've never considered this necessary for deleting tiger:reviewed=no. (Also, over time I've gotten a little bolder about simply deleting the roads that don't seem to correspond to anything on leaf-off satellite, Bing streetside, or the county maps -- especially the ones that look like spiky stick drawings. I feel that leaving a road I genuinely believe to be fictional is a disservice to the map.) - The highway=* classification -- most common problem I see here is highway=residential for tracks, driveways, and other service roads (more rarely residential for what should be secondary or tertiary.) - The access -- somewhat common to find a pubic road imported with access=private, so if I suspect this I'll leave the tiger:reviewed=no tag until access can be confirmed, and add a note or fixme. (It's also quite common to find driveways imported as access=private. When surveying, I tend to remove the private tag if the driveway isn't gated or signed private, since access=private will prevent routing to the house at the end of the driveway, sometimes even ending the route on a different residential road that's physically closer to the house than the road the driveway's connected to.) - The road name -- and this can be a real mess because road signs, addresses, government maps, and TIGER often disagree. Even two road signs a mile apart may disagree. I do my best to set name=* and alt_name=*, and I'll often leave the extra fields from the TIGER import (name_1, tiger:basename, etc) if they have other variations. Kevin, if you can give some more details on your name-matching process using E911 and DOT maps, I'd love to learn. Creating/repairing highway route relations is a special case of name fixing I guess. I've been lax about removing TIGER's name=State Highway X etc tags; I'll try to do better there. Regarding the surface values, at some point Richard Fairhurst made the specific request that adding surface=* should be part of the TIGER cleanup, when possible. Personally I only tend to do it when the surface can be clearly observed and the road in question falls somewhere in the gap between paved residential and unpaved track. And I also don't consider this necessary for deleting tiger:reviewed=no. ...Related
[Talk-us] weeklyOSM #520 2020-06-30-2020-07-06
The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 520, is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of a lot of things happening in the openstreetmap world: https://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/13367/ Enjoy! Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in to https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login with your OSM account. Read more about how to write a post here: http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm weeklyOSM? who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages where?: https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
