Re: [Talk-us] Proposed automated motorway_link mass edit
Dave, Dave Hansen wrote: > Can you share some of the scripts and methods you used for this? I can but I had somewhat hoped to keep the ugly bits under the carpet. I very much followed the ages-old software development method of "meddling through" ;-) So: 1. Create US extract from current planet file using Osmosis and a proper US polygon file. 2. Use "osmcut" (C program, from SVN) to split that US extract into nice quadratic chunks (of 1x1 degree in my case) to make them easier to handle. We're doing a local analysis so this is no problem. The program writes unsorted output so sort that again using Osmosis. (If one already had smaller excerpts, e.g. something downloaded from the API or cut out of the planet, that could be used as well.) 3. Run a Perl script on the individual chunks that loads the ways section and does all the magic motorway_link analysis. The output of the Perl script is a primitive text file that contains lines like change way 1234 from motorway_link to residential I'll make the Perl script available for download when it works properly. 4. For the web report, run another quick Perl script that greps the way IDs out of those output files, downloads them from the API (writes one file for each way), and outputs them in the proper County/State category (lazy boy that I am, I simply take the county info from the first node in the way). 5. For the automated edit, again grep the change commands from step 3, modify the ways from step 4 accordingly, and update with the API. I'll make a separate mini script for this. Note that while I do have a "Fixbot" framework that I sometimes use to automatically fix things, this was too special a case and so I decided to handle it differently. > I do think that some automated fix-bots would be nice to have run > periodically for cleanups like this that are pretty easy to verify. I would advise against running this periodically but it's your choice of course. Once the initial bulk is fixed, the small amount of errors that may be introduced by people can also be fixed by people. And who knows, maybe someone actually *wants* a bit of motorway_link to connect two primary roads for whatever highly specific reason... > I'd also like to look into some gluing back together of the TIGER counties > and I wonder how suitable this would be. My gut feeling is that this calls for a semi-automated process in which a script suggests certain changes but humans still have to confirm them individually. This will be technically possible when third-party web applications can make API changes in the name of others by using OAuth (soon to be deployed on osm.org). Not something you'll write over a weekend that's for sure! Bye Frederik ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Fwd: [OSM-newbies] Roundabout direction
should have cc'd talk-us before i hit send ... On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Jens Müller wrote: > On 02.07.2009 16:09, Peter Childs wrote: >>> You don't need a "oneway" tag : >>> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout >>> > >>> > This is implied by the tag "junction=roundabout" itself (if it is not >>> > oneway, then it is not a roundabout). >>> > >> That is not 100% true. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_(Hemel_Hempstead) > > That's not one roundabout, that's a collection of several ones. that's the difference between technical tagging and common usage. For a motorist, it is one junction of roadways, to a mapper, it is multiple roundabout junctions of oneway=no links or if divided paired oneway=yes links. Of the four UK Magic Roundabouts, one http://osm.org/go/eus_enMmc-- needs some love, there are no mini-roundabouts marked. So on the four magic roundabouts, who has right of way? In the US, most states give right of way to traffic in or leaving the roundabout (or 'rotary' as we say), but some states in their wisdom were heterodox, which makes a roundabout spanning the iirc VA MD border treacherous as the rules change every half revolution. But there is a tendency in some designs for drivers on what the feel is the thru road to assume THEY have right of way irregardless, which appears to be the intent of the engineers here http://osm.org/go/ZfIvvIBi7-- which has a circular island with statue, but we instead of the usual YIELD sign for entering traffic, we have STOP signs herehttp://osm.org/go/ZfIvh2N4Y-- to prevent thru traffic sailing thru to the detriment or circulation and pedestrians, Are there any known Magic Roundabouts outside the UK? Wikipedia only lists 4 in UK. -- Bill in Boston n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed automated motorway_link mass edit
Hi, Alan Mintz wrote: > In San Bernardino County, CA, all but two of these were cases where the > motorway_link was a ramp that had not been connected to the motorway (which > I fixed). That's a valid concern (also voiced by Apollinaris Schoell) and I had not thought about that. I have now changed the script to identify "dangling" motorway_links, and leave them untouched even if they are connected to a lesser road on the other end. I don't actually check whether there is a motorway in the vicinity, that would be too much magic. This will cause the script to ignore things like: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/10262409 (I'm loathe to try to automatically weld motorway_links to motorways, I think this is at least beyond the scope of this particular fix and something that is likely to cause trouble.) This brings down the number of proposed changes from 28k to 26k. The new list is at the same place: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/us-motorway-link-downgrade/ - note that it is still based on the same data as the last one so any changes you have made in the mean time are not reflected in the list, but the automatic change will make sure not to overwrite your edits. Of the previous suggestions for San Bernadino, CA: 35105571 → service; 7079506 → residential; 7123988 → primary_link; 7137908 → secondary_link; 7139773 → primary_link; 7145681 → residential; 7149216 → primary_link; 7151635 → secondary_link only these now remain: 7123988 → primary_link; 7139773 → primary_link which I assume matches your result. I would also kindly ask Apollinaris Schoell to check whether any problems remain. (Apollinaris asked in another e-mail whether those dangling links, as they have to be fixed manually, could be made available in a list with JOSM remote control plugin links. As the inventor of the remote control plugin I really can't say no to that so here's that list: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/us-dangling-motorway-links - but be advised that this is a one-time effort and the list will not magically update itself after you have gone wild fixing the bugs, so if you click on one of the edit links and see that everything is fine then someone else has fixed it already. Apologies for not being able to provide a ticketing system where you can mark the stuff that's done but I guess that'll have to wait for the grand unified OSM bug tracker.) If I go ahead with the automatic change, and I happily leave that decision to the mailing list, am I correct to assume that I should leave the "tiger:reviewed=no" tag in, because I'm not actually reviewing anything? Bye Frederik ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed automated motorway_link mass edit
Hi, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I'll make the Perl script available for download when it works properly. http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/us-motorway-link-downgrade/fix-motorway-links.pl Bye Frederik ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed automated motorway_link mass edit
On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 15:46 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > This brings down the number of proposed changes from 28k to 26k. The new > list is at the same place: > > http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/us-motorway-link-downgrade/ Some of these at least are from a botched TIGER county that I screwed up during the upload in Lane county. It's probably another good example why that we should stay far far away from these in the automatic downgrade. -- Dave ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed automated motorway_link mass edit
On Jul 17, 2009, at 2:24 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > >> I'd also like to look into some gluing back together of the TIGER >> counties >> and I wonder how suitable this would be. > > My gut feeling is that this calls for a semi-automated process in > which > a script suggests certain changes but humans still have to confirm > them > individually. This will be technically possible when third-party web > applications can make API changes in the name of others by using OAuth > (soon to be deployed on osm.org). Not something you'll write over a > weekend that's for sure! Some of it can definitely be automated. If you have a way that stops at a node, and there is another node at the same location attached to a different way, the nodes should be merged. Another fix I'd like to see is to look at all the Interstate Highways, and if there is a road connected to it at any angle between 45 and -45, disconnect it. An even more aggressive fix would be to disconnect everything that isn't a motorway_link. That's probably correct, but more aggressive than I would choose to implement. -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - Twitter: Russ_OSM - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed automated motorway_link mass edit
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:10, Russ Nelson wrote: > An even more aggressive fix would be to > disconnect everything that isn't a motorway_link. That's probably > correct, but more aggressive than I would choose to implement. Not a good idea at all, IMO. I can think of numerous places within 50 miles of my home where, due to existing highways being upgraded to motorway or towns being bypassed by freeway/motorway-grade highway, there are nodes which have both motorway and non-motorway ways connected, because the motorway lanes empty directly onto the old highway, or (when traveling in the opposite direction) the only way to avoid entering the motorway section is to have turned off at some previous intersection. -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed automated motorway_link mass edit
A quick tip for those reviewing this list: on the page for each way there is a small map zoomed to that way. Many of these small links at maximum zoom have no tiles prepared to display, but you can use the mouse scroll wheel to zoom out a bit on the small map. It is faster than opening the larger map. These are a nice cleanup. I have been going through the proposed edits to Georgia. Nearly all of the proposed edits are good, there were only two I have found so far that are the disconnected case and I went ahead and fixed them manually. I see that you have already released a new version without the disconnected links. That is certainly good for the automatic edit, but I think it would be helpful to have the page of the disconnected links available for people to look at as a guide for what to manually fix. Some types of road are fine to have disconnected, but it is likely always a map error if these are. Thank you for this contribution to OSM, this seems much faster than waiting for us to notice each of these links and fix them manually. -- Mark Gray ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed automated motorway_link mass edit
checked the new version and it does a much better job. found one exception where things get worse but 99% correct fixes will be a great improvement. and in this case there is no simple rule to filter it requires checks in the form Russ suggested. But these are to aggressive for an automatic change. if there are no other objections I vote for the change. Apollinaris On 17 Jul 2009, at 6:46 , Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Alan Mintz wrote: >> In San Bernardino County, CA, all but two of these were cases where >> the >> motorway_link was a ramp that had not been connected to the >> motorway (which >> I fixed). > > That's a valid concern (also voiced by Apollinaris Schoell) and I had > not thought about that. > > I have now changed the script to identify "dangling" motorway_links, > and > leave them untouched even if they are connected to a lesser road on > the > other end. I don't actually check whether there is a motorway in the > vicinity, that would be too much magic. This will cause the script to > ignore things like: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/10262409 > > (I'm loathe to try to automatically weld motorway_links to > motorways, I > think this is at least beyond the scope of this particular fix and > something that is likely to cause trouble.) > > This brings down the number of proposed changes from 28k to 26k. The > new > list is at the same place: > > http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/us-motorway-link-downgrade/ > > - note that it is still based on the same data as the last one so any > changes you have made in the mean time are not reflected in the list, > but the automatic change will make sure not to overwrite your edits. > > Of the previous suggestions for San Bernadino, CA: > > 35105571 → service; 7079506 → residential; 7123988 → > primary_link; > 7137908 → secondary_link; 7139773 → primary_link; 7145681 → > residential; > 7149216 → primary_link; 7151635 → secondary_link > > only these now remain: > > 7123988 → primary_link; 7139773 → primary_link > > which I assume matches your result. I would also kindly ask > Apollinaris > Schoell to check whether any problems remain. > > (Apollinaris asked in another e-mail whether those dangling links, as > they have to be fixed manually, could be made available in a list with > JOSM remote control plugin links. As the inventor of the remote > control > plugin I really can't say no to that so here's that list: > http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/us-dangling-motorway-links - but be > advised that this is a one-time effort and the list will not magically > update itself after you have gone wild fixing the bugs, so if you > click > on one of the edit links and see that everything is fine then someone > else has fixed it already. Apologies for not being able to provide a > ticketing system where you can mark the stuff that's done but I guess > that'll have to wait for the grand unified OSM bug tracker.) > > > If I go ahead with the automatic change, and I happily leave that > decision to the mailing list, am I correct to assume that I should > leave > the "tiger:reviewed=no" tag in, because I'm not actually reviewing > anything? > > > Bye > Frederik > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed automated motorway_link mass edit
On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 08:10 -0700, Russ Nelson wrote: > On Jul 17, 2009, at 2:24 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > > >> I'd also like to look into some gluing back together of the TIGER > >> counties > >> and I wonder how suitable this would be. > > > > My gut feeling is that this calls for a semi-automated process in > > which > > a script suggests certain changes but humans still have to confirm > > them > > individually. This will be technically possible when third-party web > > applications can make API changes in the name of others by using OAuth > > (soon to be deployed on osm.org). Not something you'll write over a > > weekend that's for sure! > > > Some of it can definitely be automated. If you have a way that stops > at a node, and there is another node at the same location attached to > a different way, the nodes should be merged. Well, with appropriate checks of course. We wouldn't want to do this with interstates and regular roads, power lines or other "incompatible" ways. But I agree in general. > Another fix I'd like to see is to look at all the Interstate Highways, > and if there is a road connected to it at any angle between 45 and > -45, disconnect it. An even more aggressive fix would be to > disconnect everything that isn't a motorway_link. That's probably > correct, but more aggressive than I would choose to implement. Yep. I've even got a JOSM validator plugin test to check motorway intersections. It doesn't do the angles, but just ensures motorways only touch other way types at their endpoints. -- Dave ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed automated motorway_link mass edit
On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 10:27 -0500, David Lynch wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:10, Russ Nelson wrote: > > An even more aggressive fix would be to > > disconnect everything that isn't a motorway_link. That's probably > > correct, but more aggressive than I would choose to implement. > > Not a good idea at all, IMO. I can think of numerous places within 50 > miles of my home where, due to existing highways being upgraded to > motorway or towns being bypassed by freeway/motorway-grade highway, > there are nodes which have both motorway and non-motorway ways > connected, because the motorway lanes empty directly onto the old > highway Yeah, you definitely have to be careful. It's OK for a motorway to touch: 1. another motorway 2. a motorway_link 3. a non-mototorway, but only at its *END* node. Not at its beginning node 4. "service" roads. Our friendly police officers love to use these little spurs to hide for speed traps in Oregon. :) Here's where I-72 ends, for instance. This really is a full motorway and I wouldn't call it a motorway_link even up until the point where it runs into a stoplight: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.12193&lon=-88.28141&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF -- Dave ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed automated motorway_link mass edit
On Jul 17, 2009, at 8:27 AM, David Lynch wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:10, Russ Nelson wrote: >> An even more aggressive fix would be to >> disconnect everything that isn't a motorway_link. That's probably >> correct, but more aggressive than I would choose to implement. > > Not a good idea at all, IMO. I can think of numerous places within 50 > miles of my home where, due to existing highways being upgraded to > motorway or towns being bypassed by freeway/motorway-grade highway, > there are nodes which have bo When an automated edit can fix 98% of things that are wrong, breaks 1% of things that are correct, and falsely fixes 1% things that didn't need fixing, is it good or bad? My feeling is ZOMG! Let's DO IT, NOW, but I think that you may disagree, and I'm wondering why you would. -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - Twitter: Russ_OSM - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed automated motorway_link mass edit
> > Yeah, you definitely have to be careful. It's OK for a motorway to > touch: > > 1. another motorway > 2. a motorway_link > 3. a non-mototorway, but only at its *END* node. Not at its beginning > node Why? US 101 changes an estimated million times from motorway to trunk/ primary and back to motorway. the begin node must connect to a non motorway ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed automated motorway_link mass edit
> > Yep. I've even got a JOSM validator plugin test to check motorway > intersections. It doesn't do the angles, but just ensures motorways > only touch other way types at their endpoints. > very useful, can you share? Apollinaris > -- Dave > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed automated motorway_link mass edit
Because I and numerous other mappers have put a hell of a lot of time and effort into getting things right, and I don't want anyone breaking it because an algorithm assumes it isn't right. On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:15, Russ Nelson wrote: > > On Jul 17, 2009, at 8:27 AM, David Lynch wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:10, Russ Nelson wrote: >>> An even more aggressive fix would be to >>> disconnect everything that isn't a motorway_link. That's probably >>> correct, but more aggressive than I would choose to implement. >> >> Not a good idea at all, IMO. I can think of numerous places within 50 >> miles of my home where, due to existing highways being upgraded to >> motorway or towns being bypassed by freeway/motorway-grade highway, >> there are nodes which have bo > > When an automated edit can fix 98% of things that are wrong, breaks 1% > of things that are correct, and falsely fixes 1% things that didn't > need fixing, is it good or bad? > > My feeling is ZOMG! Let's DO IT, NOW, but I think that you may > disagree, and I'm wondering why you would. > > -- > Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson > r...@cloudmade.com - Twitter: Russ_OSM - > http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed automated motorway_link mass edit
On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 09:19 -0700, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > > Yep. I've even got a JOSM validator plugin test to check motorway > > intersections. It doesn't do the angles, but just ensures motorways > > only touch other way types at their endpoints. > > > very useful, can you share? Here are my current jars: http://sr71.net/~dave/osm/josm/07172009/ The problem is that I need a few core changes in JOSM. I got a few of them upstream, but I need my ReverseLookup code integrated. -- Dave ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed automated motorway_link mass edit
Suddenly top-posting we are why? On Jul 17, 2009, at 9:29 AM, David Lynch wrote: > Because I and numerous other mappers have put a hell of a lot of time > and effort into getting things right, and I don't want anyone breaking > it because an algorithm assumes it isn't right. Well, I guess that's an argument for only editing data still owned by that DaveHansen character. I appreciate that you have invested significant time and effort into getting a particular area into good shape. But it seems to me that being able to fix 50 times the area you've already edited, at the cost of some damage to your area, is something that you would appreciate is a good thing. Or is your concern not the map as a whole, but instead the portion of it that you've edited. > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:15, Russ Nelson wrote: >> >> When an automated edit can fix 98% of things that are wrong, breaks >> 1% >> of things that are correct, and falsely fixes 1% things that didn't >> need fixing, is it good or bad? -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - Twitter: Russ_OSM - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed automated motorway_link mass edit
On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 10:35 -0700, Russ Nelson wrote: > On Jul 17, 2009, at 9:29 AM, David Lynch wrote: > > Because I and numerous other mappers have put a hell of a lot of time > > and effort into getting things right, and I don't want anyone breaking > > it because an algorithm assumes it isn't right. > > Well, I guess that's an argument for only editing data still owned by > that DaveHansen character. > > I appreciate that you have invested significant time and effort into > getting a particular area into good shape. But it seems to me that > being able to fix 50 times the area you've already edited, at the cost > of some damage to your area, is something that you would appreciate is > a good thing. Or is your concern not the map as a whole, but instead > the portion of it that you've edited. This argument really rings true to me. With the TIGER import, there were certainly areas of higher-quality data that got destroyed. But, certainly the map benefited overall. There was also another curious side-effect: the areas that *had* personal attention given to them were actually the ones that it was easiest to make decisions about overwriting things. They already had a loving and caring human to fix them up if anything went wrong. -- Dave ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed automated motorway_link mass edit
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:35, Russ Nelson wrote: > Suddenly top-posting we are why? The day gmail stops putting two blank lines and the cursor at the top of the message is the day I stop accidentally top-posting because I hit "reply", dash off a message, and send. > On Jul 17, 2009, at 9:29 AM, David Lynch wrote: > >> Because I and numerous other mappers have put a hell of a lot of time >> and effort into getting things right, and I don't want anyone breaking >> it because an algorithm assumes it isn't right. > > Well, I guess that's an argument for only editing data still owned by > that DaveHansen character. > > I appreciate that you have invested significant time and effort into > getting a particular area into good shape. But it seems to me that > being able to fix 50 times the area you've already edited, at the cost > of some damage to your area, is something that you would appreciate is > a good thing. Or is your concern not the map as a whole, but instead > the portion of it that you've edited. It was mostly the original wording of "disconnect everything that isn't a motorway_link." Taking that literally, you end up with a lot of places where things would be broken needlessly (because they've been verified to be correct.) Reduce the possibility of a false positive in your identifications, and I'd be a lot more okay with it. I'd probably settle for disconnecting nodes where no way using it ends, whether or not it has been edited. -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed automated motorway_link mass edit
Heve had a look through some of the listing in Texas (2800 would take a LONG time...). Here's where a minor concern pops up. So far I'm through Midland County. The majority of the rural counties changes look to be correct fixes. The majority of larger city changes are downgrading the links, when in fact the highway itself needs to be upgraded. Jason ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed automated motorway_link mass edit
Jason Straub writes: > Heve had a look through some of the listing in Texas (2800 would take > a LONG time...). Here's where a minor concern pops up. So far I'm > through Midland County. The majority of the rural counties changes > look to be correct fixes. The majority of larger city changes are > downgrading the links, when in fact the highway itself needs to be > upgraded. If the highway is tagged trunk but ought to be a motorway, then auto-changing the links to trunk_link still seems like progress. Quick, fix the highway before the script runs :-) pgpq1ezP3lRsb.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed automated motorway_link mass edit
Hi, Greg Troxel wrote: >> Heve had a look through some of the listing in Texas (2800 would take >> a LONG time...). Here's where a minor concern pops up. So far I'm >> through Midland County. The majority of the rural counties changes >> look to be correct fixes. The majority of larger city changes are >> downgrading the links, when in fact the highway itself needs to be >> upgraded. > > If the highway is tagged trunk but ought to be a motorway, then > auto-changing the links to trunk_link still seems like progress. > > Quick, fix the highway before the script runs :-) If the automatic edit goes ahead, then it will downgrade all motorway links as listed on the web page I provided, unless they have been modified in the mean time. This means that upgrading a trunk to motorway now would not save the links from being downgraded! Now if people are doing this en masse over the next few days then I would have to decide on an automatism for detecting these cases, or re-run the analysis. But if these are isolated cases, then I would like to offer the following suggestion: If you upgrade a road to motorway, could you also remove the "tiger:reviewed=no" tag from the associated motorway_links? That would then flag them as modified, and cause my script not to downgrade them. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
