I kinda object to any type of mechanical removal of this tag, mainly because I do still use it. I've modified JOSM's settings to show the yellow highlight, and I periodically go on a TIGER editing spree, especially in the county I live in. It has been very valuable in finding and fixing misnamed roads and other errors.
One of my main objections to a mechanical removal is that there are numerous rural-area roads where the only edit I've done is to add the county road number as a ref tag (often I will document these as a voice note in OsmAnd as I drive past them on a higher-priority road). I won't necessarily have verified the road name, surface, or any other attributes at the time. --jack On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Martijn van Exel <[email protected]> wrote: > I was thinking about this some more. I do still actually use the visual > cue (yellow) in JOSM to see which roads I want to double-check when editing > in an area. I don't know if this is still enabled in JOSM by default but > it's available as one of the default paint styles. > -- > Martijn van Exel > [email protected] > > On Fri, May 11, 2018, at 10:59, Steve Friedl wrote: > > > I believe folks still use it in places to indicate that no-one has > reviewed it on the ground, but I cannot find the thread(s) where that was > brought up. > > > > I’m exactly one of those users: once I’ve confirmed or fixed the object, > > I delete the tag, so this is still useful for me as a kind of to-do > > list. > > > > I also delete tiger:reviewed=yes tags when otherwise editing an object. > > > > Steve > > > > > > From: Martijn van Exel [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 9:56 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Drop the tiger:reviewed tag from roads > > > > I believe folks still use it in places to indicate that no-one has > > reviewed it on the ground, but I cannot find the thread(s) where that > > was brought up. > > > > I think a mechanical removal may be a bit overzealous, even though I > > personally wouldn't shed a tear. As long as there is at least one tag > > left that would indicate TIGER as the original source, so we can > > continue to detect 'unmodified TIGER' roads. > > -- > > Martijn van Exel > > mailto:[email protected] > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018, at 10:25, Clifford Snow wrote: > > The tag, tiger:reviewed that is left over from the 2006/7 import of > > TIGER roads has lost any meaning. For example, look at 196th Avenue > > Southwest [1] in Thurston County WA. It's on version 6 yet still has > > tiger:reviewed=no. Note I picked this street at random from a overpass > > query [2]. I see this tag all the time. It's time to get rid of it. Not > > through a mechanical edit, but by editors making changes to roads. > > > > I'm proposing to open a ticket for JOSM to add this tag to the list of > > discarded tags. I'd like to hear if there are any objects or think this > > is a good idea. > > > > I did learn from Toby Murray this morning that you can add > > tiger:reviewed to the list of discarded tags in JOSM by going to > > preferences->Advanced Preferences and adding tiger:reviewed to > > tags.discardable. Then just reload JOSM for the changed to be active. > > > > [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/173554611 > > [2] http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/yJh > > > > Clifford > > > > -- > > @osm_seattle > > http://osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us > > OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-us mailing list > > mailto:[email protected] > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
