[Talk-ca] Disgardable NHN and NRN tags
This is based on http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2012-July/008830.html, a recent talk-us@ discussion about TIGER tags. Parts of this message are a copy/paste from there. Some people may not even be aware of this but JOSM silently discards the created_by tag if it exists on any object you change and upload to the API. This tag was deemed unnecessary and counterproductive a long time ago and this is just a way of cleaning it out of the database as people edit. Not sure if Potlatch does anything like this. I think some of the tags from the GeoBase NHN and NRN imports can be silently dropped too. I think the following can be safely dropped: geobase:datasetName geobase:uuid accuracy:meters waterway:type sub_sea:type Any thoughts? ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Disgardable NHN and NRN tags
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Paul Norman wrote: This is based on http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2012-July/008830.html, a recent talk-us@ discussion about TIGER tags. Parts of this message are a copy/paste from there. I think the following can be safely dropped: geobase:datasetName geobase:uuid I agree. When I started the geobase road imports it predated the ability to add changeset tags or comments. A lot of my reasoning for having those tags was to be able to traceback objects to their original Geobase objects so we could come up with a way of updating OSM with future versions of the Geobase data. These tags have never (to my knowledge) been used for this and I doubt they would be very useful for this purpose if anyone tried to do so. accuracy:meters waterway:type sub_sea:type Any thoughts? ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Disgardable NHN and NRN tags
I'd keep the accuracy:meters around. I've used that for other things (mainly denoting how accurate my gps is in obtaining geodetic survey markers, or what the accuracy is based on number of sample points being averaged). Wouldn't want JOSM to be wiping those out. I think the ways tagged with sub_sea would need to be deleted, not just the tag itself. These tend to be hydrological topology connectors "under" lakes that show how rivers are connected. The entire way should be deleted to bring it in line with the rest of OSM. Not too sure about the waterway:type tag. Might be used in other places for other things? Can't think of anything stopping us from getting rid of geobase:* tags. Canvec imports don't have this, so it's inconsistent across the country, and it's probably not used anywhere else. Adam On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Steve Singer wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Paul Norman wrote: > >> This is based on >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2012-July/008830.html, a >> recent talk-us@ discussion about TIGER tags. Parts of this message are a >> copy/paste from there. > > >> I think the following can be safely dropped: >> >> geobase:datasetName >> geobase:uuid > > > I agree. When I started the geobase road imports it predated the ability to > add changeset tags or comments. A lot of my reasoning for having those tags > was to be able to traceback objects to their original Geobase objects so we > could come up with a way of updating OSM with future versions of the Geobase > data. These tags have never (to my knowledge) been used for this and I > doubt they would be very useful for this purpose if anyone tried to do so. > > > >> accuracy:meters >> waterway:type >> sub_sea:type >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> >> ___ >> Talk-ca mailing list >> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >> > > > ___ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Disgardable NHN and NRN tags
> From: Adam Dunn [mailto:dunna...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 5:57 PM > To: Steve Singer > Cc: Paul Norman; Toby Murray; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Disgardable NHN and NRN tags > > I'd keep the accuracy:meters around. I've used that for other things > (mainly denoting how accurate my gps is in obtaining geodetic survey > markers, or what the accuracy is based on number of sample points being > averaged). Wouldn't want JOSM to be wiping those out. Why not accuracy instead? But ya, if you're using it then it'll need to be kept. > I think the ways tagged with sub_sea would need to be deleted, not just > the tag itself. These tend to be hydrological topology connectors > "under" lakes that show how rivers are connected. The entire way should > be deleted to bring it in line with the rest of OSM. Most of them need converting to waterway=stream (or other tags as appropriate) and sub_sea deleting. A lot of them are small ponds or streams where there would normally be a way. > Not too sure about the waterway:type tag. Might be used in other places > for other things? Taginfo shows only the imported values - I doubt anyone is using this. > Can't think of anything stopping us from getting rid of geobase:* tags. > Canvec imports don't have this, so it's inconsistent across the country, > and it's probably not used anywhere else. The ones I listed were from BC - are there others elsewhere that also need removing? ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Disgardable NHN and NRN tags
> From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 8:14 PM > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Disgardable NHN and NRN tags > > > I think the ways tagged with sub_sea would need to be deleted, not > > just the tag itself. These tend to be hydrological topology connectors > > "under" lakes that show how rivers are connected. The entire way > > should be deleted to bring it in line with the rest of OSM. > > Most of them need converting to waterway=stream (or other tags as > appropriate) and sub_sea deleting. A lot of them are small ponds or > streams where there would normally be a way. > > > Not too sure about the waterway:type tag. Might be used in other > > places for other things? > > Taginfo shows only the imported values - I doubt anyone is using this. > > > Can't think of anything stopping us from getting rid of geobase:* > tags. > > Canvec imports don't have this, so it's inconsistent across the > > country, and it's probably not used anywhere else. > > The ones I listed were from BC - are there others elsewhere that also > need removing? sub_sea:type is okay to be removed - the only value in the database is inferred, it's only from the import waterway:type will be okay to remove once I deal with the 250 or so exceptional cases manually. As an aside, completing the rest of the NHN cleanup mechanical edit discussed and consulted on in 2011 (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/pnorman_imports#NHN_Tag _cleanup) should deal with a lot of the objects. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
