On Jul 7, 2020, at 5:03 PM, Tod Fitch <[email protected]> wrote: > One thing that I only recently figured out: You can include a search for your > OSM user ID in the Overpass query. That might help to find roads you’ve > edited in the past so you can remove the tiger:reviewed tag. > > I am using that to find all those highway=stop I mapped back when the Wiki > said that the render/consumer could figure out which direction is was for > based on distance to the nearest intersection. Since that time tagging > practice has changed and a “direction=forward | backward” tag is now supposed > to be on nodes tagged with “highway=stop | yield”. > > Since Osmose is nagging me, I thought I should go back and clean up the > several thousand instances. About 2/3rds of the way done on that task. The > Overpass search I currently use is: > >> [out:xml][timeout:25]; >> ( >> node(user:"n76")["direction"!~".*"]["highway"="stop"]({{bbox}}); >> node(user:"n76")["direction"!~".*"]["highway"="give_way"]({{bbox}}); >> ); >> out meta; >> >; >> out meta qt; > > p.s. Thanks Steve! I was not aware I could use a geocode area like California > for my Overpass search boundary. That will come is handy!
You are welcome. And it is amazing how OT can combine queries into dizzyingly complex stacks of very specific subsets of OSM's data. However, I would caution what has a whiff of "automated edit" here: having an OT query — even when it is all your editing — to be an all-encompassing assumption that "what you edited before is absolutely correct...because YOU did!" might be too strong of an assumption. So, please be careful. My point is that every time I remove the tiger_reviewed=no tag, it is during an edit session where I was quite deliberately doing specifically-TIGER aware editing and correction. Assuming that a bunch of edits you have done before actually WERE improving TIGER data "so good" (maybe so, maybe not) that you might also (retrospectively) remove the tiger_reviewed=no tag might be specious. It might not be specious, true, so OK, go ahead and remove the "no" tag, but don't do so in a batch. I'd recommend a re-review of those data before you remove "no" tags. Individually during a review that might go pretty quickly, but not all at once with an assumption that sounds a lot like a lark or a wish. Be careful! Cautious sometimes (including here), rather than bold (but bold on occasion), SteveA _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
