[Talk-us] TIGER edited map updated with Toby's suggestion
All, sorry I didnt write this sooner Last week we updated the TIGER edited map to include the logic suggested by Toby for checking the number of versions. Many thanks to Gravitystorm for the changes and ArtemP for the installation Please let us know if that's helped improve what you were expecting to see Thanks Ant ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER edited map updated with Toby's suggestion
Sorry, the village of Summerhaven, which I totally reworked in Sep 2009 is still shown in red: http://open.mapquestapi.com/tigerviewer/index.html?zoom=12&lat=32.438&lon=-110.75635&layers=B Andy Antony Pegg wrote: All, sorry I didnt write this sooner Last week we updated the TIGER edited map to include the logic suggested by Toby for checking the number of versions. Many thanks to Gravitystorm for the changes and ArtemP for the installation Please let us know if that's helped improve what you were expecting to see Thanks Ant ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER edited map updated with Toby's suggestion
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Andrew Ayre wrote: > Sorry, the village of Summerhaven, which I totally reworked in Sep 2009 is > still shown in red: > > http://open.mapquestapi.com/tigerviewer/index.html?zoom=12&lat=32.438&lon=-110.75635&layers=B I haven't checked every way in the area but it looks like most of these aren't TIGER roads to begin with. You created them (version 1) then balrog-kun renamed expanded all the street name abbreviations (version 2) so they are in version 2 and last touched by balrog-kun which is why they are being rendered as red. The TIGER edited map isn't really intended for these ways since they aren't originally TIGER data. I guess it would be nice to turn ways that weren't imported from TIGER green, regardless of last editor and version number. But only the current version of the way is available for inspection while rendering so this is kind of hard to do... Toby ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER edited map updated with Toby's suggestion
At 2011-01-24 15:37, Toby Murray wrote: On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Andrew Ayre wrote: > Sorry, the village of Summerhaven, which I totally reworked in Sep 2009 is > still shown in red: > > http://open.mapquestapi.com/tigerviewer/index.html?zoom=12&lat=32.438&lon=-110.75635&layers=B I haven't checked every way in the area but it looks like most of these aren't TIGER roads to begin with. You created them (version 1) then balrog-kun renamed expanded all the street name abbreviations (version 2) so they are in version 2 and last touched by balrog-kun which is why they are being rendered as red. The TIGER edited map isn't really intended for these ways since they aren't originally TIGER data. I guess it would be nice to turn ways that weren't imported from TIGER green, regardless of last editor and version number. But only the current version of the way is available for inspection while rendering so this is kind of hard to do... Only objects with tiger:* tags should be candidates for being red. I'd suggest looking for the tiger:county or tiger:name_base tags, since some have removed other tiger:* tags but left ones like tiger:cfcc or tiger:zip_* for reference. However, I find another problem. When I split a TIGER-imported way and keep the tiger:* tags on it, I end up with what looks like a TIGER way, but isn't. It has tiger:*=* and v=1 (or v=2 if I edited it again). However, the UID is mine, not balrog-kun or DaveHansenTiger, so filtering for this would solve the problem as well. In summary, I propose to add the following requirements to the existing filter for turning a feature red: - Must have tiger:name_base tag - UID must be balrog_kun or DaveHansenTiger -- Alan Mintz ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER edited map updated with Toby's suggestion
On 25 January 2011 00:57, Alan Mintz wrote: > At 2011-01-24 15:37, Toby Murray wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Andrew Ayre >> wrote: >> > Sorry, the village of Summerhaven, which I totally reworked in Sep 2009 >> > is >> > still shown in red: >> > >> > >> > http://open.mapquestapi.com/tigerviewer/index.html?zoom=12&lat=32.438&lon=-110.75635&layers=B >> >> I haven't checked every way in the area but it looks like most of >> these aren't TIGER roads to begin with. You created them (version 1) >> then balrog-kun renamed expanded all the street name abbreviations >> (version 2) so they are in version 2 and last touched by balrog-kun >> which is why they are being rendered as red. The TIGER edited map >> isn't really intended for these ways since they aren't originally >> TIGER data. >> >> I guess it would be nice to turn ways that weren't imported from TIGER >> green, regardless of last editor and version number. But only the >> current version of the way is available for inspection while rendering >> so this is kind of hard to do... > > Only objects with tiger:* tags should be candidates for being red. I'd > suggest looking for the tiger:county or tiger:name_base tags, since some > have removed other tiger:* tags but left ones like tiger:cfcc or tiger:zip_* > for reference. > > However, I find another problem. When I split a TIGER-imported way and keep > the tiger:* tags on it, I end up with what looks like a TIGER way, but > isn't. It has tiger:*=* and v=1 (or v=2 if I edited it again). However, the > UID is mine, not balrog-kun or DaveHansenTiger, so filtering for this would > solve the problem as well. > > In summary, I propose to add the following requirements to the existing > filter for turning a feature red: > - Must have tiger:name_base tag I'd suggest tiger:reviewed=no which is kind of what the tag was for. Also I (balrog-kun) have edited a good amount of data manually, from survey or imagery, at the same time there are a portion of roads where I changed the name twice, generating v=2 and then v=3 because after the first run I found that some more patterns needed manual review because it was impossible to automatically Do The Right Thing in more situations than expected. On the TIGER scale they're both small groups though. It's a pity that the full history dump can't be used easily because that's often the assumption when processing OSM data and it's often recommended on the mailing lists to use changeset tags instead of tags on features. You could for example filter out changesets with bot=yes which would skip all of my road name expanding and possibly more stuff skewing the results. Cheers ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER edited map updated with Toby's suggestion
At 2011-01-24 16:55, andrzej zaborowski wrote: On 25 January 2011 00:57, Alan Mintz wrote: > At 2011-01-24 15:37, Toby Murray wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Andrew Ayre >> wrote: >> > Sorry, the village of Summerhaven, which I totally reworked in Sep 2009 >> > is >> > still shown in red: >> > >> > >> > http://open.mapquestapi.com/tigerviewer/index.html?zoom=12&lat=32.438&lon=-110.75635&layers=B >> >> I haven't checked every way in the area but it looks like most of >> these aren't TIGER roads to begin with. You created them  (version 1) >> then balrog-kun renamed expanded all the street name abbreviations >> (version 2) so they are in version 2 and last touched by balrog-kun >> which is why they are being rendered as red. The TIGER edited map >> isn't really intended for these ways since they aren't originally >> TIGER data. >> >> I guess it would be nice to turn ways that weren't imported from TIGER >> green, regardless of last editor and version number. But only the >> current version of the way is available for inspection while rendering >> so this is kind of hard to do... > > Only objects with tiger:* tags should be candidates for being red. I'd > suggest looking for the tiger:county or tiger:name_base tags, since some > have removed other tiger:* tags but left ones like tiger:cfcc or tiger:zip_* > for reference. > > However, I find another problem. When I split a TIGER-imported way and keep > the tiger:* tags on it, I end up with what looks like a TIGER way, but > isn't. It has tiger:*=* and v=1 (or v=2 if I edited it again). However, the > UID is mine, not balrog-kun or DaveHansenTiger, so filtering for this would > solve the problem as well. > > In summary, I propose to add the following requirements to the existing > filter for turning a feature red: > - Must have tiger:name_base tag I'd suggest tiger:reviewed=no which is kind of what the tag was for. ...except that some (many?) people don't know (or don't care) to remove the tag after they edit/confirm the feature. There are many edited TIGER ways out there with this tag. Also I (balrog-kun) have edited a good amount of data manually, from survey or imagery, at the same time there are a portion of roads where I changed the name twice, generating v=2 and then v=3 because after the first run I found that some more patterns needed manual review because it was impossible to automatically Do The Right Thing in more situations than expected. On the TIGER scale they're both small groups though. It's a pity that the full history dump can't be used easily because that's often the assumption when processing OSM data and it's often recommended on the mailing lists to use changeset tags instead of tags on features. You could for example filter out changesets with bot=yes which would skip all of my road name expanding and possibly more stuff skewing the results. How about changing: - UID must be balrog_kun or DaveHansenTiger to: - (UID=balrog_kun and changeset in list_of_changesets) or UID=DaveHansenTiger where list_of_changesets is the list of changeset IDs that were used for the name expansion. Cheers -- Alan Mintz ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER edited map updated with Toby's suggestion
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 01:55:57AM +0100, andrzej zaborowski wrote: > On 25 January 2011 00:57, Alan Mintz wrote: > > > > In summary, I propose to add the following requirements to the existing > > filter for turning a feature red: > > - Must have tiger:name_base tag > > I'd suggest tiger:reviewed=no which is kind of what the tag was for. Can we really count on that being set correctly? I very rarely remember that tag, and I've edited a fair amount of TIGER roads in my area of Illinois. -- Kristian Zoerhoff kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER edited map updated with Toby's suggestion
On 1/24/2011 8:54 PM, Alan Mintz wrote: At 2011-01-24 16:55, andrzej zaborowski wrote: I'd suggest tiger:reviewed=no which is kind of what the tag was for. ...except that some (many?) people don't know (or don't care) to remove the tag after they edit/confirm the feature. There are many edited TIGER ways out there with this tag. There are also many edited TIGER ways that have not actually been reviewed. Perhaps a ref was added, or a grade crossing, or a grade separation. I'll generally leave this tag for the locals to remove. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER edited map updated with Toby's suggestion
On 25 January 2011 02:54, Alan Mintz wrote: > At 2011-01-24 16:55, andrzej zaborowski wrote: >> >> On 25 January 2011 00:57, Alan Mintz wrote: >> > At 2011-01-24 15:37, Toby Murray wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Andrew Ayre >> >> wrote: >> >> > Sorry, the village of Summerhaven, which I totally reworked in Sep >> >> > 2009 >> >> > is >> >> > still shown in red: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > http://open.mapquestapi.com/tigerviewer/index.html?zoom=12&lat=32.438&lon=-110.75635&layers=B >> >> >> >> I haven't checked every way in the area but it looks like most of >> >> these aren't TIGER roads to begin with. You created them  (version 1) >> >> then balrog-kun renamed expanded all the street name abbreviations >> >> (version 2) so they are in version 2 and last touched by balrog-kun >> >> which is why they are being rendered as red. The TIGER edited map >> >> isn't really intended for these ways since they aren't originally >> >> TIGER data. >> >> >> >> I guess it would be nice to turn ways that weren't imported from TIGER >> >> green, regardless of last editor and version number. But only the >> >> current version of the way is available for inspection while rendering >> >> so this is kind of hard to do... >> > >> > Only objects with tiger:* tags should be candidates for being red. I'd >> > suggest looking for the tiger:county or tiger:name_base tags, since some >> > have removed other tiger:* tags but left ones like tiger:cfcc or >> > tiger:zip_* >> > for reference. >> > >> > However, I find another problem. When I split a TIGER-imported way and >> > keep >> > the tiger:* tags on it, I end up with what looks like a TIGER way, but >> > isn't. It has tiger:*=* and v=1 (or v=2 if I edited it again). However, >> > the >> > UID is mine, not balrog-kun or DaveHansenTiger, so filtering for this >> > would >> > solve the problem as well. >> > >> > In summary, I propose to add the following requirements to the existing >> > filter for turning a feature red: >> > - Must have tiger:name_base tag >> >> I'd suggest tiger:reviewed=no which is kind of what the tag was for. > > ...except that some (many?) people don't know (or don't care) to remove the > tag after they edit/confirm the feature. There are many edited TIGER ways > out there with this tag. Right, but at this point we just want to determine if the way comes from TIGER... so if either tiger:reviewed=no or tiger:base_name *is* set, it's an indication that it may be from TIGER. I can imagine someone adding a tiger:base_name to a non-TIGER name for consistency, but I can't imagine someone reasonably adding tiger:reviewed=no. > > >> Also I (balrog-kun) have edited a good amount of data manually, from >> survey or imagery, at the same time there are a portion of roads where >> I changed the name twice, generating v=2 and then v=3 because after >> the first run I found that some more patterns needed manual review >> because it was impossible to automatically Do The Right Thing in more >> situations than expected. On the TIGER scale they're both small >> groups though. >> >> It's a pity that the full history dump can't be used easily because >> that's often the assumption when processing OSM data and it's often >> recommended on the mailing lists to use changeset tags instead of tags >> on features. You could for example filter out changesets with bot=yes >> which would skip all of my road name expanding and possibly more stuff >> skewing the results. > > How about changing: > - UID must be balrog_kun or DaveHansenTiger > to: > - (UID=balrog_kun and changeset in list_of_changesets) or > UID=DaveHansenTiger > > where list_of_changesets is the list of changeset IDs that were used for the > name expansion. That would work I guess but still not for 100% cases, so I think the difference isn't worth the effort. Cheers ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER edited map updated with Toby's suggestion
How about changing: - UID must be balrog_kun or DaveHansenTiger to: - (UID=balrog_kun and changeset in list_of_changesets) or UID=DaveHansenTiger where list_of_changesets is the list of changeset IDs that were used for the name expansion. This won't work either because balrog_kun may have un-abbreviated a road that had previously been edited. It currently looks correct, in pseudo code, Not Edited = (user:DaveHansenTiger AND (Date between 2007-09-01 and 2008-05-04) OR (user:Milenko and (Date between 2008-10-29 and 2007-12-12) ) OR (user:balrog-kun and version<3) I believe that is the correct logic. The scripts of balrog-kun that I've seen only automatically un-abbreviate TIGER ways, so there shouldn't be any false positives. Any non-TIGER ways won't meet this criteria, and thus shouldn't be red. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER edited map updated with Toby's suggestion
Not going to rely on tiger reviewed tag. I know how long it took me to understand I should change it when and why. I'm sure others haven't changed the tag either. Being able to check the full history is for sure a long term goal but not an easy one to solve. I know it's not perfect yet, but hope you guys find it useful nevertheless Its going to be a little bit before we can get back to working on it. However, the style file is up on github. If others were able to work out a more exacting filter query (that doesn't kill performance), and provided the new file, we would definitely be able to apply an update to the server. HTH and thanks Ant Sent from my iPad On Jan 24, 2011, at 9:12 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote: > > That would work I guess but still not for 100% cases, so I think the > difference isn't worth the effort. > > Cheers ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER edited map updated with Toby's suggestion
Also I (balrog-kun) have edited a good amount of data manually Oops - disregard my previous message! I'm up to speed with everyone else now. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER edited map updated with Toby's suggestion
On 25 January 2011 03:36, Mike N wrote: >> How about changing: >> - UID must be balrog_kun or DaveHansenTiger >> to: >> - (UID=balrog_kun and changeset in list_of_changesets) or >> UID=DaveHansenTiger >> >> where list_of_changesets is the list of changeset IDs that were used for >> the name expansion. > > This won't work either because balrog_kun may have un-abbreviated a road > that had previously been edited. Together with the version check it would work better than the current heuristic, but only minimally better. > > It currently looks correct, in pseudo code, > > Not Edited = (user:DaveHansenTiger AND (Date between 2007-09-01 and > 2008-05-04) > OR (user:Milenko and (Date between 2008-10-29 and 2007-12-12) ) > OR (user:balrog-kun and version<3) > > I believe that is the correct logic. The scripts of balrog-kun that I've > seen only automatically un-abbreviate TIGER ways, so there shouldn't be any > false positives. As someone noticed, the scripts did not go too far in checking that the ways were from TIGER import and affected some 100% user-mapped areas too (mostly positively though) Cheers ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
