Re: [Talk-us] cycle.travel US bike routing, and unreviewed rural TIGER

[Jack Burke]

So, just for fun, I'm going through the area you pointed out and fixing some of 
the roads. I'm making some of those Unclassified instead of Tertiary because 
they go from nowhere to nowhere, but feel free to change them. 

I plan on making a road trip in a few weeks, and depending on timing and 
weather, I might make a detour through that area and capture a random sampling 
of those roads in Mapillary. 

-jack


On June 19, 2015 3:47:22 PM EDT, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
>Just as a postscript to this discussion I thought I'd cite an example
>area.
>If you look here, in Georgia:
>
>   http://cycle.travel/map?lat=31.9023&lon=-84.0398&zoom=14
>
>you'll see that most of the roads are unreviewed TIGER residentials. Of
>those, these are adjacent to each other:
>
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/9359782 - good tarmac, should be
>highway=tertiary
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/9359913 - unpaved road;
>highway=unclassified, surface=unpaved
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/9359784 - probably tertiary, but lousy
>geometry at the S
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/9359783 - whoops, where did the
>connectivity go?
>
>All of this is trivially fixable but right now there's no way of using
>them
>for routing or sensible cartography. Do dive in - the cycle.travel
>rendering
>makes it obvious which bits need fixing, and you learn to identify the
>roads
>which are likely to be paved through roads and therefore targets to
>fix.
>It's quite good fun. :)
>
>cheers
>Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>View this message in context:
>http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/cycle-travel-US-bike-routing-and-unreviewed-rural-TIGER-tp5848084p5848589.html
>Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>___
>Talk-us mailing list
>Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

-- 
Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology. ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] cycle.travel US bike routing, and unreviewed rural TIGER

[Bryan Housel]

I’m considering whether it makes sense to remove the `tiger:reviewed=no` tag 
when a user performs certain edits in iD.
Discuss here:  https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2697



> On Jun 22, 2015, at 2:46 AM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
> 
> In other words, it won't route over a rural road tagged as
> highway=residential
> tiger:reviewed=no
> 
> Most of the well reviewed Tiger I see still has this tag.
> People don't know to delete it.  The automatic delete on edit does not apply 
> to tiger:reviewed (it applies to a Tiger tag I wish was kept instead!).
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] cycle.travel US bike routing, and unreviewed rural TIGER

[Jack Burke]

Usually I change it to =yes instead of just deleting it. The main reason is I 
frequently use ITOworld maps to review the county I live in to find unreviewed 
roads, and I like the color pattern better that way. 

-jack

On June 22, 2015 2:46:36 AM EDT, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
>>
>> In other words, it won't route over a rural road tagged as
>> highway=residential
>> tiger:reviewed=no
>>
>
>Most of the well reviewed Tiger I see still has this tag.
>People don't know to delete it.  The automatic delete on edit does not
>apply to tiger:reviewed (it applies to a Tiger tag I wish was kept
>instead!).
>
>
>
>
>___
>Talk-us mailing list
>Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

-- 
Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology. ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us