Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
I can guarantee I haven’t been on those roads. :) I’d call the former highway=tertiary because it has the centerline. No centerline, I’d call it residential. What I meant by “rural residential roads” looks a lot like http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/47.89747/-118.10358. Lost in the woods rural. Gravel roads are tricky. I’d probably say highway=residential, surface=gravel. The wiki is more specific about highway=track for “agricultural or forest”; it didn’t say that in the past. I’d like to see highway=gravel at the top level, since they’re s usually avoided by bicycles and motorcycles, but it’s too late for that now. Again, it seems like the US is trying to take an official designation from elsewhere and apply it to our country. Plus, since almost all of the TIGER import is highway=residential, changing roads to highway=unclassified is a monumental task. -Dion > From: Mark Wagner > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags? > Message-ID: <20160606113228.1f5b2...@puma.carnildo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 13:21:07 -0700 > Dion Dock wrote: > > >> I think the rural residential roads are either “highway=service”, >> “highway=track” or “highway=path”. I think “highway=residential” >> should always have a name. Service might or might not have a name, >> same for path and track. > > You must be driving on a different set of roads than me. Consider > South Bank Road (OSM: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/47.8602/-117.6751, Google: > https://www.google.com/maps/@47.8555045,-117.6814056,14z). It doesn't > connect anywhere to anywhere, so it's not tertiary or above, but > "highway=service" doesn't seem appropriate for a road that provides > access to about a hundred scattered houses and two little-known parks, > and "highway=track" seems wrong for eight miles of paved two-lane > public road. > > Or if that seems too built-up, how about Glenwood Road > (OSM:https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/46.9380/-117.2812, > Google: https://www.google.com/maps/@46.9391634,-117.2896051,14z). > Four miles of high-quality two-lane gravel road, providing access to > some farms and a home or two. > > There's a definite need for a road level between "this is how you > travel from town A to town B" and "this is how you make your final > approach to your destination". "highway=unclassified" seems like it > works well there. > > -- > Mark > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 13:21:07 -0700 Dion Dock wrote: > I think the rural residential roads are either “highway=service”, > “highway=track” or “highway=path”. I think “highway=residential” > should always have a name. Service might or might not have a name, > same for path and track. You must be driving on a different set of roads than me. Consider South Bank Road (OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/47.8602/-117.6751, Google: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.8555045,-117.6814056,14z). It doesn't connect anywhere to anywhere, so it's not tertiary or above, but "highway=service" doesn't seem appropriate for a road that provides access to about a hundred scattered houses and two little-known parks, and "highway=track" seems wrong for eight miles of paved two-lane public road. Or if that seems too built-up, how about Glenwood Road (OSM:https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/46.9380/-117.2812, Google: https://www.google.com/maps/@46.9391634,-117.2896051,14z). Four miles of high-quality two-lane gravel road, providing access to some farms and a home or two. There's a definite need for a road level between "this is how you travel from town A to town B" and "this is how you make your final approach to your destination". "highway=unclassified" seems like it works well there. -- Mark ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
Loud opinions follow. Be warned. :) I wish “unclassified” would just die in the USA. I think it has a formal meaning in other countries (see also “living_street”) but doesn’t have meaning in the USA. Further, since almost all of the TIGER import didn’t use it, it’s just creating busywork to apply it in place of existing tags. However, since it’s defined on the Wiki, everyone tries to find a place for it. I would compare this to having a tag of “prime minister”. Yes, it means something somewhere, but not here. I think the rural residential roads are either “highway=service”, “highway=track” or “highway=path”. I think “highway=residential” should always have a name. Service might or might not have a name, same for path and track. In general, people should not be encouraged to take path/service/track when there is a residential road. I basically never remove the tiger:reviewed tag; typically because it’s another step that isn’t easily supported by most tools. -Dion > Eric Ladner writes: > >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:58 AM Greg Troxel wrote: >> >>> >>> Kevin Kenny writes: >>> OK, 'residential' if it looks like 'subdivision', 'unclassified' otherwise (as long as it's drivable in, say, my daughter's car rather than my 4-wheeler). Got it. >>> >>> I also see a distinction between residential/unclassified as denoting a >>> legal road (around me, carved-out parcel wise from the surrounding land) >>> vs track and some service denoting a non-legal-road. However, others >>> see the physical and legal attributes as separate. >>> >> My understanding of the description of "unclassified" is unclassified is a >> step between residential and tertiary. It's a connecting road, minor >> connector, whatever, that doesn't have residential on it, but it's not high >> enough in classification to make it a tertiary road. > > I agree with that notion. > >> I usually use it for roads in industrial complexes, loops around malls, >> business complexes, or other connectors/roads where there's no obvious >> residential around. > > Mostly agree, but I only use it for legal roads, not driveways or > private roads. Meaning someplace where (in new england) it's legally > separate and the public has a right of access. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
On 06/04/2016 09:12 PM, Harald Kliems wrote: All these discussions are the reason why I almost never touch the highway=* tag and rather add surface=* or other descriptive tags to TIGER roads. There just isn't any consensus and many good reasons for many positions about residential, unclassified, track, etc. I go farther than that. I try to avoid adding subjective tagging entirely. I'll add surface=, because I can tell asphalt from clay. But tracktype=, smoothness=, mtb:scale=, sac_scale=, are all things I tend to avoid. Two mappers are likely to come up with different answers, which flies in the face of the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability principle. And the consequences are unlikely to be severe; subtle differences in rendering, or tweaks in time estimates from a router, are all that I really expect. I find that there's an element of machismo in the assignment of the scales. SAC scale is a really good example. Novices are likely to overrate a route, because they lack confidence and also don't have the experience of harder routes to compare against. Experienced mountaineers are likely to underrate them. Someone who routinely free-solos a route that's 5.6 on the Yosemite scale doesn't know what a grade 4 route is! About the only people who can grade a route reliably are experienced guides, who have an idea what to expect of clients at various skill levels - and the description of the grades has to be written in terms of, "what would you take a client on," or they'll still underrate them. I've seen trails with the steepness and exposure of https://www.flickr.com/photos/65793193@N00/3183604309/ and https://www.flickr.com/photos/65793193@N00/3183604743/ tagged as anything from sac_scale=hiking (T1) to sac_scale=alpine_hiking (T4). If subjectivity allows for that wide a range of classifications, the scale isn't all that useful. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
All these discussions are the reason why I almost never touch the highway=* tag and rather add surface=* or other descriptive tags to TIGER roads. There just isn't any consensus and many good reasons for many positions about residential, unclassified, track, etc. Harald. On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:50 PM Eric Ladner wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:01 PM Kevin Kenny > wrote: > >> I'm usually talking about mapping in much more remote areas, and I've >> been using 'track' more to denote more road quality. In some of the >> places I go, there are public rights-of-way that haven't been >> maintained by the counties in decades, that would still be lawful to >> drive on if you had a vehicle that could do it. They range from >> "completely grown to trees but you can most likely ride an ATV" >> through "mostly used for forestry, and high-clearance vehicles >> shouldn't have much problem, but don't try it in a passenger car" to >> "pea gravel and sugar sand that someone grades once a season, used as >> an auto road in the summer and a snowmobile track in the winter." > > > Isn't that what "tracktype=gradeX" is for? The first case would be > highway=track; tracktype=grade5, the second probably tracktype=grade2 and > the last tracktype=grade1. They're all highway=track (utility/farm vehicle > access), but just different grades (from grassy cow paths up to hard packed > gravel/clay roads that are, in some places, probably nicer than most back > water county paved roads. > > You mentioned forestry, so naturally I think of logging roads. > Technically it's public land, so there's no restriction to access, but for > all intents and purposes, they are highway=track. > > The >> first is "highway=path" with appropriate notations for what uses are >> permitted, the second is "highway=track" (I could add "access=yes" but >> I thought that was the default for all highways); the third I'm less >> sure about, and I'm inconsistent between "track" and "unclassified" >> (with restrictions of 15 May-15 October, or whatever the season is). >> These are all roads where I have to keep reassuring my city-bred wife, >> "yes, this is a public road, even if it looks like an abandoned >> driveway!" when driving a 4WD down one. >> > > General public access roads, though, in extreme rural areas where the road > is not what city folks would call a road -- probably would be unclassified > with a "surface" qualifier (unpaved, compacted, dirt, earth, whatever). > > The description for highway=path says it's generally used for > non-motorized vehicles. I'd prefer highway=unclassified, also with a > surface qualifier. But... > > ... I'm not bashing anybody over the head with my opinion, just stating an > alternate point of view. I'm fine with whatever anybody wants to do as > long as it's consistent and has some kind of rationale behind it. > > E > > > ___ > 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] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:01 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > I'm usually talking about mapping in much more remote areas, and I've > been using 'track' more to denote more road quality. In some of the > places I go, there are public rights-of-way that haven't been > maintained by the counties in decades, that would still be lawful to > drive on if you had a vehicle that could do it. They range from > "completely grown to trees but you can most likely ride an ATV" > through "mostly used for forestry, and high-clearance vehicles > shouldn't have much problem, but don't try it in a passenger car" to > "pea gravel and sugar sand that someone grades once a season, used as > an auto road in the summer and a snowmobile track in the winter." Isn't that what "tracktype=gradeX" is for? The first case would be highway=track; tracktype=grade5, the second probably tracktype=grade2 and the last tracktype=grade1. They're all highway=track (utility/farm vehicle access), but just different grades (from grassy cow paths up to hard packed gravel/clay roads that are, in some places, probably nicer than most back water county paved roads. You mentioned forestry, so naturally I think of logging roads. Technically it's public land, so there's no restriction to access, but for all intents and purposes, they are highway=track. The > first is "highway=path" with appropriate notations for what uses are > permitted, the second is "highway=track" (I could add "access=yes" but > I thought that was the default for all highways); the third I'm less > sure about, and I'm inconsistent between "track" and "unclassified" > (with restrictions of 15 May-15 October, or whatever the season is). > These are all roads where I have to keep reassuring my city-bred wife, > "yes, this is a public road, even if it looks like an abandoned > driveway!" when driving a 4WD down one. > General public access roads, though, in extreme rural areas where the road is not what city folks would call a road -- probably would be unclassified with a "surface" qualifier (unpaved, compacted, dirt, earth, whatever). The description for highway=path says it's generally used for non-motorized vehicles. I'd prefer highway=unclassified, also with a surface qualifier. But... ... I'm not bashing anybody over the head with my opinion, just stating an alternate point of view. I'm fine with whatever anybody wants to do as long as it's consistent and has some kind of rationale behind it. E ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
I'm usually talking about mapping in much more remote areas, and I've been using 'track' more to denote more road quality. In some of the places I go, there are public rights-of-way that haven't been maintained by the counties in decades, that would still be lawful to drive on if you had a vehicle that could do it. They range from "completely grown to trees but you can most likely ride an ATV" through "mostly used for forestry, and high-clearance vehicles shouldn't have much problem, but don't try it in a passenger car" to "pea gravel and sugar sand that someone grades once a season, used as an auto road in the summer and a snowmobile track in the winter." The first is "highway=path" with appropriate notations for what uses are permitted, the second is "highway=track" (I could add "access=yes" but I thought that was the default for all highways); the third I'm less sure about, and I'm inconsistent between "track" and "unclassified" (with restrictions of 15 May-15 October, or whatever the season is). These are all roads where I have to keep reassuring my city-bred wife, "yes, this is a public road, even if it looks like an abandoned driveway!" when driving a 4WD down one. These are all legally public highways. Many of them are of a classification that allows a landowner to gate them to restrain livestock while allowing the stock to cross the road, as long as the gate is left unlocked so that a traveler can pass, so they might be gated and still public. On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Eric Ladner writes: > >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:58 AM Greg Troxel wrote: >> >>> >>> Kevin Kenny writes: >>> >>> > OK, 'residential' if it looks like 'subdivision', 'unclassified' >>> > otherwise (as long as it's drivable in, say, my daughter's car rather >>> > than my 4-wheeler). Got it. >>> >>> I also see a distinction between residential/unclassified as denoting a >>> legal road (around me, carved-out parcel wise from the surrounding land) >>> vs track and some service denoting a non-legal-road. However, others >>> see the physical and legal attributes as separate. >>> >> My understanding of the description of "unclassified" is unclassified is a >> step between residential and tertiary. It's a connecting road, minor >> connector, whatever, that doesn't have residential on it, but it's not high >> enough in classification to make it a tertiary road. > > I agree with that notion. > >> I usually use it for roads in industrial complexes, loops around malls, >> business complexes, or other connectors/roads where there's no obvious >> residential around. > > Mostly agree, but I only use it for legal roads, not driveways or > private roads. Meaning someplace where (in new england) it's legally > separate and the public has a right of access. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Eric Ladner wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:58 AM Greg Troxel wrote: > >> >> Kevin Kenny writes: >> >> > OK, 'residential' if it looks like 'subdivision', 'unclassified' >> > otherwise (as long as it's drivable in, say, my daughter's car rather >> > than my 4-wheeler). Got it. >> >> I also see a distinction between residential/unclassified as denoting a >> legal road (around me, carved-out parcel wise from the surrounding land) >> vs track and some service denoting a non-legal-road. However, others >> see the physical and legal attributes as separate. >> >> > My understanding of the description of "unclassified" is unclassified is a > step between residential and tertiary. It's a connecting road, minor > connector, whatever, that doesn't have residential on it, but it's not high > enough in classification to make it a tertiary road. > Generally speaking, yes. It's roughly the BFE version of residential. > I usually use it for roads in industrial complexes, loops around malls, > business complexes, or other connectors/roads where there's no obvious > residential around. > That might work in some situations but for the most part, that's highway=service; service=* ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
Eric Ladner writes: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:58 AM Greg Troxel wrote: > >> >> Kevin Kenny writes: >> >> > OK, 'residential' if it looks like 'subdivision', 'unclassified' >> > otherwise (as long as it's drivable in, say, my daughter's car rather >> > than my 4-wheeler). Got it. >> >> I also see a distinction between residential/unclassified as denoting a >> legal road (around me, carved-out parcel wise from the surrounding land) >> vs track and some service denoting a non-legal-road. However, others >> see the physical and legal attributes as separate. >> > My understanding of the description of "unclassified" is unclassified is a > step between residential and tertiary. It's a connecting road, minor > connector, whatever, that doesn't have residential on it, but it's not high > enough in classification to make it a tertiary road. I agree with that notion. > I usually use it for roads in industrial complexes, loops around malls, > business complexes, or other connectors/roads where there's no obvious > residential around. Mostly agree, but I only use it for legal roads, not driveways or private roads. Meaning someplace where (in new england) it's legally separate and the public has a right of access. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:58 AM Greg Troxel wrote: > > Kevin Kenny writes: > > > OK, 'residential' if it looks like 'subdivision', 'unclassified' > > otherwise (as long as it's drivable in, say, my daughter's car rather > > than my 4-wheeler). Got it. > > I also see a distinction between residential/unclassified as denoting a > legal road (around me, carved-out parcel wise from the surrounding land) > vs track and some service denoting a non-legal-road. However, others > see the physical and legal attributes as separate. > > My understanding of the description of "unclassified" is unclassified is a step between residential and tertiary. It's a connecting road, minor connector, whatever, that doesn't have residential on it, but it's not high enough in classification to make it a tertiary road. I usually use it for roads in industrial complexes, loops around malls, business complexes, or other connectors/roads where there's no obvious residential around. Eric ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
Kevin Kenny writes: > OK, 'residential' if it looks like 'subdivision', 'unclassified' > otherwise (as long as it's drivable in, say, my daughter's car rather > than my 4-wheeler). Got it. I also see a distinction between residential/unclassified as denoting a legal road (around me, carved-out parcel wise from the surrounding land) vs track and some service denoting a non-legal-road. However, others see the physical and legal attributes as separate. If you do change a legal road to track because of poor condition, please add access=yes if that is how it is. highway=residential has a pretty safe access=yes default, and I find that most highway=track are not actually access=yes, even though most do not have tags. This is further messy on rendering, as it might be that tracks should be rendered with an access color if they are access=yes, and not colored if they are access=private. > I suspect that 'residential'/'unclassified' right now is almost a > difference without a distinction. In the US, that's true. Driving in Scotland recently gave me more insight into the UK origins of the classification. > I suppose that 'residential' might be a weak indication to a router to > avoid the route, but the consequences of getting it wrong don't appear > to be terribly severe. Which is a relief. I would say that a router avoiding residential is incorrect, unless it's a tiny bit of avoidance. It should really be about speeds, width, lights, etc. As for where Richard Welty draws the line, if there are a lot of houses on 4 acre lots, I don't think that's iffy. The questions to me is not subdivision but whether most of the landuse along the road is residential or not and the much harder whether much of the traffic is to/from residential vs other, which is even harder for collector roads to neighborhoods and what you call through in the end I tink where this line is drawn is very far down on the OSM problem list. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
OK, 'residential' if it looks like 'subdivision', 'unclassified' otherwise (as long as it's drivable in, say, my daughter's car rather than my 4-wheeler). Got it. I suspect that 'residential'/'unclassified' right now is almost a difference without a distinction. I suppose that 'residential' might be a weak indication to a router to avoid the route, but the consequences of getting it wrong don't appear to be terribly severe. Which is a relief. On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > On 6/3/16 5:13 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: >> Can someone review for me the 'rural residential' problem? > the short version is that we are supposed to use residential > in truly residential areas and unclassified for generic town > roads. in tiger, there is no distinction between the two and so > everything was imported as residential. > > i leave it residential in areas that have a subdivision vibe > going - multiple closely spaced houses or comparatively small > building lots, but change it to unclassified if it's just a bunch > of homes that have been built along old farm roads over the > years. the section of the road i live on is slightly borderline, > or would be if the lots were smaller, but most of them are 4 acres > or more. > > 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 > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
On 6/3/16 5:13 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > Can someone review for me the 'rural residential' problem? the short version is that we are supposed to use residential in truly residential areas and unclassified for generic town roads. in tiger, there is no distinction between the two and so everything was imported as residential. i leave it residential in areas that have a subdivision vibe going - multiple closely spaced houses or comparatively small building lots, but change it to unclassified if it's just a bunch of homes that have been built along old farm roads over the years. the section of the road i live on is slightly borderline, or would be if the lots were smaller, but most of them are 4 acres or more. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
I typically correct the geometry and delete the 'TIGER:reviewed=no', but leave the rest because I'm superstitious... -- SEJ -- twitter: @geomantic -- skype: sejohnson8 A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes. --*Ludwig Wittgenstein* On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Russell Deffner wrote: > Hi Kevin, I'll try to add some context. Here's a neat use for the new OSM > Analytics tool developed by HOT: > http://osm-analytics.org/#/compare/polygon:~lwbS}lpoFipQYwJawGbnQxD/2008...now/highways > > If you don't see 'blue' roads, zoom in until you do and then swipe > left/right - you can see the original TIGER roads were 'relatively > accurate', i.e. you can follow X road, turn left on Y, etc, etc. but > position and geometry is 'horrible'. And yes, there's many 'ghost roads', > etc. which maybe once was a track that the power company or someone used to > 'get back into the woods/cut-across/etc.' but are not 'roads' as the > average reasonable person would consider. Definitely take a look at > Wandcrest Park for a 'what the heck happened there' that took a drive back > in there to figure out. > > FYI, of course anyone is welcome to critique (and several have) my 'home > area'; i.e. I realized from day 1 I would probably be one of, if not the > only, OSM-er in Park County, Colorado: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/439376 - I am basically working it > from north to south, but as Wolfgang said - some of the things/ways I > mapped early on, I do very differently now and it will forever be a work in > progress. One of those things was my first focus was on cleaning up road > geometry; so no, I didn't add surface or smoothness, etc. tags. Around here > I can show you a paved road that you might not want to drive your > high-clearance vehicle down, and a dirt road that people drive their > low-clearance 'race cars' down at high speeds. Point being, it's not a > 'simple' equation to show 'quality' of roads. > > =Russ > > > ___ > 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] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
Hi Kevin, I'll try to add some context. Here's a neat use for the new OSM Analytics tool developed by HOT: http://osm-analytics.org/#/compare/polygon:~lwbS}lpoFipQYwJawGbnQxD/2008...now/highways If you don't see 'blue' roads, zoom in until you do and then swipe left/right - you can see the original TIGER roads were 'relatively accurate', i.e. you can follow X road, turn left on Y, etc, etc. but position and geometry is 'horrible'. And yes, there's many 'ghost roads', etc. which maybe once was a track that the power company or someone used to 'get back into the woods/cut-across/etc.' but are not 'roads' as the average reasonable person would consider. Definitely take a look at Wandcrest Park for a 'what the heck happened there' that took a drive back in there to figure out. FYI, of course anyone is welcome to critique (and several have) my 'home area'; i.e. I realized from day 1 I would probably be one of, if not the only, OSM-er in Park County, Colorado: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/439376 - I am basically working it from north to south, but as Wolfgang said - some of the things/ways I mapped early on, I do very differently now and it will forever be a work in progress. One of those things was my first focus was on cleaning up road geometry; so no, I didn't add surface or smoothness, etc. tags. Around here I can show you a paved road that you might not want to drive your high-clearance vehicle down, and a dirt road that people drive their low-clearance 'race cars' down at high speeds. Point being, it's not a 'simple' equation to show 'quality' of roads. =Russ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
Can someone review for me the 'rural residential' problem? I haven't done a lot of editing away of TIGER tags, although I've wanted to - a lot of the areas where I've been mapping have had virtually no TIGER review whatsoever and the garish overlays in JOSM are annoying. Some of the areas I work on are densely wooded, and the roads aren't always traceable on aerial photos, so MapRoulette won't help, but I do gather GPS tracks and check the alignment. A lot of the TIGER roads are simply hallucinations - roads in places where no road could exist or ever have existed. The best I ever found went right up the fall line of a 2000 foot cliff. I think whoever digitized for TIGER might have had a particular obsolete [1903] USGS topo that showed a dashed line for a climbing route that once existed in there. I delete hallucinatory highways.. I haven't worried much about the 'highway=' classification, except that I downgrade to 'track' if it looks as if I'd want a high-profile vehicle in anything but the best weather, or to 'path' if you're not allowed to drive on it. I suppose that I'm breaking some rule that will screw up someone's routing? If so, I'm sorry. Chalk it up to ignorance, and well, I haven't done very many of these. (I mostly edit other things than TIGER cleanup.) What should I be looking for with 'residential', and what is the alternative tagging if I don't find it? On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote: > JOSM does automatically discard some TIGER:* tags. There's a list of keys > in the tags.discardable JOSM preference item. Among the list of tags that > JOSM automatically deletes are: > tiger:source > tiger:separated > tiger:tlid > tiger:upload_uuid > > These tags are hidden from the editor so you don't normally see them. They > are automatically removed from any objects that you modify. You may notice > them if you are looking at the history of an object in JOSM. > > That being said, I delete the other tiger:* from roads as I am editing them. > Usually, I am verifying addr:* tags of things along the road and checking > that the addr:street matches the name of the road. I also often remove the > name_1, name_2, etc tags that came from the TIGER import. Where > appropriate, I retain them in alt_name or old_name. > > Peter > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Steve Friedl wrote: >> >> Ø Unless something changed, I think both Potlatch and JOSM will remove >> the ‘junk’ tags from TIGER if you delete the reviewed=no >> >> >> >> I’ve deleted thousands of tiger:reviewed tags (after proper review) and >> have never seen JOSM take anything else along for the ride. JOSM *does* >> remove the yellow glow around ways once you remove tiger:reviewed, but >> that’s all I’ve seen. >> >> >> >> I have very much wanted to dump the tags that have no obvious use for OSM, >> but had no idea if somebody else, somewhere, might use them: probably not, >> but it didn’t feel like it was my call to make. I’d love for there to be a >> consensus on this. >> >> >> >> So the only things I’ve removed are tiger:reviewed, plus spurious >> additional tags that duplicate existing ones (tiger:zip_left_1 when it’s the >> same as tiger:zip_left). >> >> >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> From: Russell Deffner [mailto:russdeff...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 8:45 AM >> To: 'Adam Franco' ; talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> >> >> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags? >> >> >> >> Oops, sorry Adam, replied directly to you versus the list; here’s the >> message: >> >> >> >> My thoughts: >> >> >> >> Unless something changed, I think both Potlatch and JOSM will remove the >> ‘junk’ tags from TIGER if you delete the reviewed=no. Maybe this is not the >> case with iD? >> >> >> >> As far as classification; please note that it is not about whether the >> road is rural or not; it’s the function – there have been people who started >> changing all ‘dirt roads’ to track around me in rural Colorado – this is NOT >> correct. Most of the ‘dirt roads’ around here are 100% verifiably >> “residential”. So please don’t encourage mass changing of classification >> based on anything but function of the roadway. >> >> >> >> =Russ >> >> >> >> From: Adam Franco [mailto:adamfra...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 9:28 AM >> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap >> Subject: Re: [Talk
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
JOSM does automatically discard some TIGER:* tags. There's a list of keys in the tags.discardable JOSM preference item. Among the list of tags that JOSM automatically deletes are: tiger:source tiger:separated tiger:tlid tiger:upload_uuid These tags are hidden from the editor so you don't normally see them. They are automatically removed from any objects that you modify. You may notice them if you are looking at the history of an object in JOSM. That being said, I delete the other tiger:* from roads as I am editing them. Usually, I am verifying addr:* tags of things along the road and checking that the addr:street matches the name of the road. I also often remove the name_1, name_2, etc tags that came from the TIGER import. Where appropriate, I retain them in alt_name or old_name. Peter On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Steve Friedl wrote: > Ø Unless something changed, I think both Potlatch and JOSM will remove > the ‘junk’ tags from TIGER if you delete the reviewed=no > > > > I’ve deleted thousands of tiger:reviewed tags (after proper review) and > have never seen JOSM take anything else along for the ride. JOSM **does** > remove the yellow glow around ways once you remove tiger:reviewed, but > that’s all I’ve seen. > > > > I have very much wanted to dump the tags that have no obvious use for OSM, > but had no idea if somebody else, somewhere, might use them: probably not, > but it didn’t feel like it was my call to make. I’d love for there to be a > consensus on this. > > > > So the only things I’ve removed are tiger:reviewed, plus spurious > additional tags that duplicate existing ones (tiger:zip_left_1 when it’s > the same as tiger:zip_left). > > > > Steve > > > > *From:* Russell Deffner [mailto:russdeff...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, June 03, 2016 8:45 AM > *To:* 'Adam Franco' ; talk-us@openstreetmap.org > > *Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags? > > > > Oops, sorry Adam, replied directly to you versus the list; here’s the > message: > > > > My thoughts: > > > > Unless something changed, I think both Potlatch and JOSM will remove the > ‘junk’ tags from TIGER if you delete the reviewed=no. Maybe this is not the > case with iD? > > > > As far as classification; please note that it is not about whether the > road is rural or not; it’s the function – there have been people who > started changing all ‘dirt roads’ to track around me in rural Colorado – > this is NOT correct. Most of the ‘dirt roads’ around here are 100% > verifiably “residential”. So please don’t encourage mass changing of > classification based on anything but function of the roadway. > > > > =Russ > > > > *From:* Adam Franco [mailto:adamfra...@gmail.com ] > *Sent:* Friday, June 03, 2016 9:28 AM > *To:* talk-us@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap > *Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags? > > > > Just some more feedback on the idea of a TIGER rural-residential challenge > based on cleanup I've done throughout much of Vermont: > >- Most of the roads in rural areas should have their highway= changed >to something other than residential. (well known issue). >- Surface tags would be GREAT! I've added surface tags to most roads >in Vermont, but have not quite gotten to all of them yet. >- At least here in Vermont, "private road" means that the ownership >and maintenance of the road is the responsibility of the resident[s], not >that "access=private". We have many private roads due to low densities of >residences and Towns generally won't take over ownership/maintenance unless >there are at least 3 residences and the proposal passes a public vote. The >TIGER import mistakenly tagged many private-roads as "access=private". It >would be great to remove this tag if it hasn't been added by a person. > > If there is any way to help out with this effort I'd love to lend a hand. > > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:18 AM, James Umbanhowar > wrote: > > Funny, I just looked at the MapRoulette beta and noticed that you were > already doing this. > > > > > On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 10:00 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote: > > Minor suggestion for this MapRoulette challenge: Could you structure > > it by state (or other geographic region, county?) and do each region > > sequentially. I, personally, think it would be neat to see areas get > > "done" as far as Tiger clean up. > > > > Either way, thanks for these. > > > > James > > > > On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 10:21 +0200, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > > &g
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
Yes, ok – so ‘aging myself’ a bit – but I did all my locale TIGER cleanup with P2, so my practice was to review/almost always fix geometry, then look at ‘function’/classification of the roadway, then just delete the reviewed tag and automagically those uid tags and such would go away. So it seems now we are talking that even more original TIGER tags are ‘useless’ and should be removed, which I have no problems with, I’m sure there were several dozen I just deleted everything (sometimes the entire way) because the road was actually a driveway or otherwise completely wrong. =Russ From: Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 10:03 AM To: Steve Friedl; Russell Deffner; Adam Franco; talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags? On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:52 AM Steve Friedl wrote: Ø Unless something changed, I think both Potlatch and JOSM will remove the ‘junk’ tags from TIGER if you delete the reviewed=no I’ve deleted thousands of tiger:reviewed tags (after proper review) and have never seen JOSM take anything else along for the ride. JOSM *does* remove the yellow glow around ways once you remove tiger:reviewed, but that’s all I’ve seen. Russell is probably referring to this: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/7915 I think most of these are gone by now. Harald. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:52 AM Steve Friedl wrote: > Ø Unless something changed, I think both Potlatch and JOSM will remove > the ‘junk’ tags from TIGER if you delete the reviewed=no > > > > I’ve deleted thousands of tiger:reviewed tags (after proper review) and > have never seen JOSM take anything else along for the ride. JOSM **does** > remove the yellow glow around ways once you remove tiger:reviewed, but > that’s all I’ve seen. > Russell is probably referring to this: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/7915 I think most of these are gone by now. Harald. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
* Unless something changed, I think both Potlatch and JOSM will remove the ‘junk’ tags from TIGER if you delete the reviewed=no I’ve deleted thousands of tiger:reviewed tags (after proper review) and have never seen JOSM take anything else along for the ride. JOSM *does* remove the yellow glow around ways once you remove tiger:reviewed, but that’s all I’ve seen. I have very much wanted to dump the tags that have no obvious use for OSM, but had no idea if somebody else, somewhere, might use them: probably not, but it didn’t feel like it was my call to make. I’d love for there to be a consensus on this. So the only things I’ve removed are tiger:reviewed, plus spurious additional tags that duplicate existing ones (tiger:zip_left_1 when it’s the same as tiger:zip_left). Steve From: Russell Deffner [mailto:russdeff...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 8:45 AM To: 'Adam Franco' ; talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags? Oops, sorry Adam, replied directly to you versus the list; here’s the message: My thoughts: Unless something changed, I think both Potlatch and JOSM will remove the ‘junk’ tags from TIGER if you delete the reviewed=no. Maybe this is not the case with iD? As far as classification; please note that it is not about whether the road is rural or not; it’s the function – there have been people who started changing all ‘dirt roads’ to track around me in rural Colorado – this is NOT correct. Most of the ‘dirt roads’ around here are 100% verifiably “residential”. So please don’t encourage mass changing of classification based on anything but function of the roadway. =Russ From: Adam Franco [mailto:adamfra...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 9:28 AM To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org> Openstreetmap Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags? Just some more feedback on the idea of a TIGER rural-residential challenge based on cleanup I've done throughout much of Vermont: * Most of the roads in rural areas should have their highway= changed to something other than residential. (well known issue). * Surface tags would be GREAT! I've added surface tags to most roads in Vermont, but have not quite gotten to all of them yet. * At least here in Vermont, "private road" means that the ownership and maintenance of the road is the responsibility of the resident[s], not that "access=private". We have many private roads due to low densities of residences and Towns generally won't take over ownership/maintenance unless there are at least 3 residences and the proposal passes a public vote. The TIGER import mistakenly tagged many private-roads as "access=private". It would be great to remove this tag if it hasn't been added by a person. If there is any way to help out with this effort I'd love to lend a hand. On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:18 AM, James Umbanhowar mailto:jumba...@gmail.com> > wrote: Funny, I just looked at the MapRoulette beta and noticed that you were already doing this. On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 10:00 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote: > Minor suggestion for this MapRoulette challenge: Could you structure > it by state (or other geographic region, county?) and do each region > sequentially. I, personally, think it would be neat to see areas get > "done" as far as Tiger clean up. > > Either way, thanks for these. > > James > > On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 10:21 +0200, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > > > Well said. I have space in my basement also. > > > > I am eager to launch a MapRoulette challenge for untouched rural > > ‘residential’ roads - a challenge which will probably take some > > time > > to complete. If someone can furnish a good Overpass query for this, > > please go ahead and do it. > > > > Martijn > > > > > > > > On Jun 3, 2016, at 8:55 AM, Richard Fairhurst > > <mailto:richard@systemed.n%0b> > > > et > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > There is a special corner of hell/Steve's basement for people who > > > remove > > > tiger:reviewed=no on rural unpaved roads without changing the > > > highway tag or > > > adding a surface tag. > > ___ > > Talk-us mailing list > > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
Oops, sorry Adam, replied directly to you versus the list; here’s the message: My thoughts: Unless something changed, I think both Potlatch and JOSM will remove the ‘junk’ tags from TIGER if you delete the reviewed=no. Maybe this is not the case with iD? As far as classification; please note that it is not about whether the road is rural or not; it’s the function – there have been people who started changing all ‘dirt roads’ to track around me in rural Colorado – this is NOT correct. Most of the ‘dirt roads’ around here are 100% verifiably “residential”. So please don’t encourage mass changing of classification based on anything but function of the roadway. =Russ From: Adam Franco [mailto:adamfra...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 9:28 AM To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags? Just some more feedback on the idea of a TIGER rural-residential challenge based on cleanup I've done throughout much of Vermont: * Most of the roads in rural areas should have their highway= changed to something other than residential. (well known issue). * Surface tags would be GREAT! I've added surface tags to most roads in Vermont, but have not quite gotten to all of them yet. * At least here in Vermont, "private road" means that the ownership and maintenance of the road is the responsibility of the resident[s], not that "access=private". We have many private roads due to low densities of residences and Towns generally won't take over ownership/maintenance unless there are at least 3 residences and the proposal passes a public vote. The TIGER import mistakenly tagged many private-roads as "access=private". It would be great to remove this tag if it hasn't been added by a person. If there is any way to help out with this effort I'd love to lend a hand. On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:18 AM, James Umbanhowar wrote: Funny, I just looked at the MapRoulette beta and noticed that you were already doing this. On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 10:00 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote: > Minor suggestion for this MapRoulette challenge: Could you structure > it by state (or other geographic region, county?) and do each region > sequentially. I, personally, think it would be neat to see areas get > "done" as far as Tiger clean up. > > Either way, thanks for these. > > James > > On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 10:21 +0200, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > > > Well said. I have space in my basement also. > > > > I am eager to launch a MapRoulette challenge for untouched rural > > ‘residential’ roads - a challenge which will probably take some > > time > > to complete. If someone can furnish a good Overpass query for this, > > please go ahead and do it. > > > > Martijn > > > > > > > > On Jun 3, 2016, at 8:55 AM, Richard Fairhurst > > <mailto:richard@systemed.n%0b> > > > et > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > There is a special corner of hell/Steve's basement for people who > > > remove > > > tiger:reviewed=no on rural unpaved roads without changing the > > > highway tag or > > > adding a surface tag. > > ___ > > 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 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
Just some more feedback on the idea of a TIGER rural-residential challenge based on cleanup I've done throughout much of Vermont: - Most of the roads in rural areas should have their highway= changed to something other than residential. (well known issue). - Surface tags would be GREAT! I've added surface tags to most roads in Vermont, but have not quite gotten to all of them yet. - At least here in Vermont, "private road" means that the ownership and maintenance of the road is the responsibility of the resident[s], not that "access=private". We have many private roads due to low densities of residences and Towns generally won't take over ownership/maintenance unless there are at least 3 residences and the proposal passes a public vote. The TIGER import mistakenly tagged many private-roads as "access=private". It would be great to remove this tag if it hasn't been added by a person. If there is any way to help out with this effort I'd love to lend a hand. On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:18 AM, James Umbanhowar wrote: > Funny, I just looked at the MapRoulette beta and noticed that you were > already doing this. > > > > On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 10:00 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote: > > Minor suggestion for this MapRoulette challenge: Could you structure > > it by state (or other geographic region, county?) and do each region > > sequentially. I, personally, think it would be neat to see areas get > > "done" as far as Tiger clean up. > > > > Either way, thanks for these. > > > > James > > > > On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 10:21 +0200, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > > > > > Well said. I have space in my basement also. > > > > > > I am eager to launch a MapRoulette challenge for untouched rural > > > ‘residential’ roads - a challenge which will probably take some > > > time > > > to complete. If someone can furnish a good Overpass query for this, > > > please go ahead and do it. > > > > > > Martijn > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 3, 2016, at 8:55 AM, Richard Fairhurst > > > et > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > There is a special corner of hell/Steve's basement for people who > > > > remove > > > > tiger:reviewed=no on rural unpaved roads without changing the > > > > highway tag or > > > > adding a surface tag. > > > ___ > > > 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 > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
Funny, I just looked at the MapRoulette beta and noticed that you were already doing this. On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 10:00 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote: > Minor suggestion for this MapRoulette challenge: Could you structure > it by state (or other geographic region, county?) and do each region > sequentially. I, personally, think it would be neat to see areas get > "done" as far as Tiger clean up. > > Either way, thanks for these. > > James > > On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 10:21 +0200, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > > > Well said. I have space in my basement also. > > > > I am eager to launch a MapRoulette challenge for untouched rural > > ‘residential’ roads - a challenge which will probably take some > > time > > to complete. If someone can furnish a good Overpass query for this, > > please go ahead and do it. > > > > Martijn > > > > > > > > On Jun 3, 2016, at 8:55 AM, Richard Fairhurst > > et > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > There is a special corner of hell/Steve's basement for people who > > > remove > > > tiger:reviewed=no on rural unpaved roads without changing the > > > highway tag or > > > adding a surface tag. > > ___ > > 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] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
Minor suggestion for this MapRoulette challenge: Could you structure it by state (or other geographic region, county?) and do each region sequentially. I, personally, think it would be neat to see areas get "done" as far as Tiger clean up. Either way, thanks for these. James On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 10:21 +0200, Martijn van Exel wrote: > Well said. I have space in my basement also. > > I am eager to launch a MapRoulette challenge for untouched rural > ‘residential’ roads - a challenge which will probably take some time > to complete. If someone can furnish a good Overpass query for this, > please go ahead and do it. > > Martijn > > > On Jun 3, 2016, at 8:55 AM, Richard Fairhurst > > wrote: > > > > There is a special corner of hell/Steve's basement for people who > > remove > > tiger:reviewed=no on rural unpaved roads without changing the > > highway tag or > > adding a surface tag. > ___ > 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] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
Well said. I have space in my basement also. I am eager to launch a MapRoulette challenge for untouched rural ‘residential’ roads - a challenge which will probably take some time to complete. If someone can furnish a good Overpass query for this, please go ahead and do it. Martijn > On Jun 3, 2016, at 8:55 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > There is a special corner of hell/Steve's basement for people who remove > tiger:reviewed=no on rural unpaved roads without changing the highway tag or > adding a surface tag. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
Madeline Steele wrote: > What do you all think about this? The sine qua non for me is that the absence of a tiger:reviewed= tag (or one set to =yes) means that you can trust the value of the highway= tag. This is especially true of rural areas where unreviewed highway=residential covers a multitude of sins. There is a special corner of hell/Steve's basement for people who remove tiger:reviewed=no on rural unpaved roads without changing the highway tag or adding a surface tag. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Best-practices-for-dealing-with-old-TIGER-tags-tp5874640p5874647.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
I usually remove all TIGER tags as I update roads. Martijn > On Jun 2, 2016, at 10:59 PM, Madeline Steele > wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > I was hoping to open a discussion on current best practices for dealing with > old TIGER tags. I know this has been covered here in the past, but I think > it’s been a few years and it seems possible that methods have shifted. > > > > I’m from Portland (Oregon J) and on many streets, TIGER tags have been > completely removed, while on others, people have left only the tiger:county > tags. Sometimes, you see tiger:zip_left and tiger:zip_right too, while in > other cases there are zip_left and zip_right keys instead. In many cases, the > following 6 TIGER tags remain: tiger:cfcc, tiger:county, tiger:name_base, > tiger:reviewed, tiger:zip_left, and tiger:zip_right. > > > > The approach that is preferred at TriMet (where I work) is that if we are > able to check the geometry of the street against fairly recent imagery > (improving it if needed) and verify the name of the street, from either our > local jurisdictional centerlines or the latest TIGER TMS layer, then we > remove all of the TIGER tags. We see that as being adequate to remove the > TIGER:reviewed tag (especially when multiple mappers have edited the way > since the initial import, which is typical). We think that the other TIGER > tags are not needed as they’re mostly comprised of information that isn’t > really appropriate for the street ways (zip code and county, which take up > less space and are easier to keep up-to-date when maintained as separate > boundary polygons) and attributes that can be derived from other fields > (e.g., prefix, basename, suffix). While it could be handy to have these > address components broken out, it adds bulk and requires updating several > fields when a name is changed. Further, the TIGER attributes are mostly > really outdated at this point as they come from 2005 data and have rarely > been updated by mappers. > > > > What do you all think about this? > > > > Thanks much, > > > > Madeline > > ___ > 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] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
On 6/2/16 4:59 PM, Madeline Steele wrote: > > The approach that is preferred at TriMet (where I work) is that if we > are able to check the geometry of the street against fairly recent > imagery (improving it if needed) and verify the name of the street, > from either our local jurisdictional centerlines or the latest TIGER > TMS layer, then we remove all of the TIGER tags. We see that as being > adequate to remove the TIGER:reviewed tag (especially when multiple > mappers have edited the way since the initial import, which is > typical). We think that the other TIGER tags are not needed as they’re > mostly comprised of information that isn’t really appropriate for the > street ways (zip code and county, which take up less space and are > easier to keep up-to-date when maintained as separate boundary > polygons) and attributes that can be derived from other fields (e.g., > prefix, basename, suffix). While it could be handy to have these > address components broken out, it adds bulk and requires updating > several fields when a name is changed. Further, the TIGER attributes > are mostly really outdated at this point as they come from 2005 data > and have rarely been updated by mappers. > > > What do you all think about this? > > i usually leave the county tags, and remove all the others. there are rare cases where a road has a historic name but is no longer signed and i may in that case convert the tiger name into an old_name tag. i think the zip tags from tiger are without value. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
Hello all, I was hoping to open a discussion on current best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags. I know this has been covered here in the past, but I think it’s been a few years and it seems possible that methods have shifted. I’m from Portland (Oregon J) and on many streets, TIGER tags have been completely removed, while on others, people have left only the tiger:county tags. Sometimes, you see tiger:zip_left and tiger:zip_right too, while in other cases there are zip_left and zip_right keys instead. In many cases, the following 6 TIGER tags remain: tiger:cfcc, tiger:county, tiger:name_base, tiger:reviewed, tiger:zip_left, and tiger:zip_right. The approach that is preferred at TriMet (where I work) is that if we are able to check the geometry of the street against fairly recent imagery (improving it if needed) and verify the name of the street, from either our local jurisdictional centerlines or the latest TIGER TMS layer, then we remove all of the TIGER tags. We see that as being adequate to remove the TIGER:reviewed tag (especially when multiple mappers have edited the way since the initial import, which is typical). We think that the other TIGER tags are not needed as they’re mostly comprised of information that isn’t really appropriate for the street ways (zip code and county, which take up less space and are easier to keep up-to-date when maintained as separate boundary polygons) and attributes that can be derived from other fields (e.g., prefix, basename, suffix). While it could be handy to have these address components broken out, it adds bulk and requires updating several fields when a name is changed. Further, the TIGER attributes are mostly really outdated at this point as they come from 2005 data and have rarely been updated by mappers. What do you all think about this? Thanks much, Madeline ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us