Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Dion Dock]

I can guarantee I haven’t been on those roads.  :)  I’d call the former 
highway=tertiary because it has the centerline.  No centerline, I’d call it 
residential.

What I meant by “rural residential roads” looks a lot like 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/47.89747/-118.10358.  Lost in the woods 
rural.

Gravel roads are tricky.  I’d probably say highway=residential, surface=gravel. 
 The wiki is more specific about highway=track for “agricultural or forest”; it 
didn’t say that in the past.  I’d like to see highway=gravel at the top level, 
since they’re s usually avoided by bicycles and motorcycles, but it’s too late 
for that now.

Again, it seems like the US is trying to take an official designation from 
elsewhere and apply it to our country.  Plus, since almost all of the TIGER 
import is highway=residential, changing roads to highway=unclassified is a 
monumental task.

-Dion

> From: Mark Wagner <mark+...@carnildo.com>
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
> Message-ID: <20160606113228.1f5b2...@puma.carnildo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 13:21:07 -0700
> Dion Dock <dion_d...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> I think the rural residential roads are either “highway=service”,
>> “highway=track” or “highway=path”.  I think “highway=residential”
>> should always have a name.  Service might or might not have a name,
>> same for path and track.
> 
> You must be driving on a different set of roads than me.  Consider
> South Bank Road (OSM:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/47.8602/-117.6751, Google:
> https://www.google.com/maps/@47.8555045,-117.6814056,14z).  It doesn't
> connect anywhere to anywhere, so it's not tertiary or above, but
> "highway=service" doesn't seem appropriate for a road that provides
> access to about a hundred scattered houses and two little-known parks,
> and "highway=track" seems wrong for eight miles of paved two-lane
> public road.
> 
> Or if that seems too built-up, how about Glenwood Road
> (OSM:https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/46.9380/-117.2812,
> Google: https://www.google.com/maps/@46.9391634,-117.2896051,14z).
> Four miles of high-quality two-lane gravel road, providing access to
> some farms and a home or two.
> 
> There's a definite need for a road level between "this is how you
> travel from town A to town B" and "this is how you make your final
> approach to your destination".  "highway=unclassified" seems like it
> works well there.
> 
> -- 
> Mark
> 


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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Mark Wagner]

On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 13:21:07 -0700
Dion Dock  wrote:


> I think the rural residential roads are either “highway=service”,
> “highway=track” or “highway=path”.  I think “highway=residential”
> should always have a name.  Service might or might not have a name,
> same for path and track.

You must be driving on a different set of roads than me.  Consider
South Bank Road (OSM:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/47.8602/-117.6751, Google:
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.8555045,-117.6814056,14z).  It doesn't
connect anywhere to anywhere, so it's not tertiary or above, but
"highway=service" doesn't seem appropriate for a road that provides
access to about a hundred scattered houses and two little-known parks,
and "highway=track" seems wrong for eight miles of paved two-lane
public road.

Or if that seems too built-up, how about Glenwood Road
(OSM:https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/46.9380/-117.2812,
Google: https://www.google.com/maps/@46.9391634,-117.2896051,14z).
Four miles of high-quality two-lane gravel road, providing access to
some farms and a home or two.

There's a definite need for a road level between "this is how you
travel from town A to town B" and "this is how you make your final
approach to your destination".  "highway=unclassified" seems like it
works well there.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Dion Dock]

Loud opinions follow.  Be warned.  :)

I wish “unclassified” would just die in the USA.  I think it has a formal 
meaning in other countries (see also “living_street”) but doesn’t have meaning 
in the USA.  Further, since almost all of the TIGER import didn’t use it, it’s 
just creating busywork to apply it in place of existing tags.  However, since 
it’s defined on the Wiki, everyone tries to find a place for it.  I would 
compare this to having a tag of “prime minister”.  Yes, it means something 
somewhere, but not here.

I think the rural residential roads are either “highway=service”, 
“highway=track” or “highway=path”.  I think “highway=residential” should always 
have a name.  Service might or might not have a name, same for path and track.

In general, people should not be encouraged to take path/service/track when 
there is a residential road.

I basically never remove the tiger:reviewed tag; typically because it’s another 
step that isn’t easily supported by most tools.

-Dion

> Eric Ladner  writes:
> 
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:58 AM Greg Troxel  wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Kevin Kenny  writes:
>>> 
 OK, 'residential' if it looks like 'subdivision', 'unclassified'
 otherwise (as long as it's drivable in, say, my daughter's car rather
 than my 4-wheeler). Got it.
>>> 
>>> I also see a distinction between residential/unclassified as denoting a
>>> legal road (around me, carved-out parcel wise from the surrounding land)
>>> vs track and some service denoting a non-legal-road.  However, others
>>> see the physical and legal attributes as separate.
>>> 
>> My understanding of the description of "unclassified" is unclassified is a
>> step between residential and tertiary.   It's a connecting road, minor
>> connector, whatever, that doesn't have residential on it, but it's not high
>> enough in classification to make it a tertiary road.
> 
> I agree with that notion.
> 
>> I usually use it for roads in industrial complexes, loops around malls,
>> business complexes, or other connectors/roads where there's no obvious
>> residential around.
> 
> Mostly agree, but I only use it for legal roads, not driveways or
> private roads.  Meaning someplace where (in new england) it's legally
> separate and the public has a right of access.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Kevin Kenny]

On 06/04/2016 09:12 PM, Harald Kliems wrote:

All these discussions are the reason why I almost never touch the
highway=* tag and rather add surface=* or other descriptive tags to
TIGER roads. There just isn't any consensus and many good reasons for
many positions about residential, unclassified, track, etc.

I go farther than that. I try to avoid adding subjective tagging
entirely. I'll add surface=, because I can tell asphalt from clay. But
tracktype=, smoothness=, mtb:scale=, sac_scale=, are all things I tend
to avoid. Two mappers are likely to come up with different answers,
which flies in the face of the
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability principle. And the
consequences are unlikely to be severe; subtle differences in
rendering, or tweaks in time estimates from a router, are all that I
really expect.

I find that there's an element of machismo in the assignment of the
scales. SAC scale is a really good example. Novices are likely to
overrate a route, because they lack confidence and also don't have the
experience of harder routes to compare against. Experienced
mountaineers are likely to underrate them. Someone who routinely
free-solos a route that's 5.6 on the Yosemite scale doesn't know what
a grade 4 route is! About the only people who can grade a route
reliably are experienced guides, who have an idea what to expect of
clients at various skill levels - and the description of the grades
has to be written in terms of, "what would you take a client on," or
they'll still underrate them.

I've seen trails with the steepness and exposure of
https://www.flickr.com/photos/65793193@N00/3183604309/ and
https://www.flickr.com/photos/65793193@N00/3183604743/ tagged as
anything from sac_scale=hiking (T1) to sac_scale=alpine_hiking (T4).
If subjectivity allows for that wide a range of classifications, the
scale isn't all that useful.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Harald Kliems]

All these discussions are the reason why I almost never touch the highway=*
tag and rather add surface=* or other descriptive tags to TIGER roads.
There just isn't any consensus and many good reasons for many positions
about residential, unclassified, track, etc.

 Harald.

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:50 PM Eric Ladner  wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:01 PM Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
>
>> I'm usually talking about mapping in much more remote areas, and I've
>> been using 'track' more to denote more road quality. In some of the
>> places I go, there are public rights-of-way that haven't been
>> maintained by the counties in decades, that would still be lawful to
>> drive on if you had a vehicle that could do it. They range from
>> "completely grown to trees but you can most likely ride an ATV"
>> through "mostly used for forestry, and high-clearance vehicles
>> shouldn't have much problem, but don't try it in a passenger car" to
>> "pea gravel and sugar sand that someone grades once a season, used as
>> an auto road in the summer and a snowmobile track in the winter."
>
>
> Isn't that what "tracktype=gradeX" is for?   The first case would be
> highway=track; tracktype=grade5, the second probably tracktype=grade2 and
> the last tracktype=grade1.  They're all highway=track (utility/farm vehicle
> access), but just different grades (from grassy cow paths up to hard packed
> gravel/clay roads that are, in some places, probably nicer than most back
> water county paved roads.
>
> You mentioned forestry, so naturally I think of logging roads.
> Technically it's public land, so there's no restriction to access, but for
> all intents and purposes, they are highway=track.
>
> The
>> first is "highway=path" with appropriate notations for what uses are
>> permitted, the second is "highway=track" (I could add "access=yes" but
>> I thought that was the default for all highways); the third I'm less
>> sure about, and I'm inconsistent between "track" and "unclassified"
>> (with restrictions of 15 May-15 October, or whatever the season is).
>> These are all roads where I have to keep reassuring my city-bred wife,
>> "yes, this is a public road, even if it looks like an abandoned
>> driveway!" when driving a 4WD down one.
>>
>
> General public access roads, though, in extreme rural areas where the road
> is not what city folks would call a road -- probably would be unclassified
> with a "surface" qualifier (unpaved, compacted, dirt, earth, whatever).
>
> The description for highway=path says it's generally used for
> non-motorized vehicles.  I'd prefer highway=unclassified, also with a
> surface qualifier.  But...
>
> ... I'm not bashing anybody over the head with my opinion, just stating an
> alternate point of view.  I'm fine with whatever anybody wants to do as
> long as it's consistent and has some kind of rationale behind it.
>
> E
>
>
> ___
> 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] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Eric Ladner]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:01 PM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> I'm usually talking about mapping in much more remote areas, and I've
> been using 'track' more to denote more road quality. In some of the
> places I go, there are public rights-of-way that haven't been
> maintained by the counties in decades, that would still be lawful to
> drive on if you had a vehicle that could do it. They range from
> "completely grown to trees but you can most likely ride an ATV"
> through "mostly used for forestry, and high-clearance vehicles
> shouldn't have much problem, but don't try it in a passenger car" to
> "pea gravel and sugar sand that someone grades once a season, used as
> an auto road in the summer and a snowmobile track in the winter."


Isn't that what "tracktype=gradeX" is for?   The first case would be
highway=track; tracktype=grade5, the second probably tracktype=grade2 and
the last tracktype=grade1.  They're all highway=track (utility/farm vehicle
access), but just different grades (from grassy cow paths up to hard packed
gravel/clay roads that are, in some places, probably nicer than most back
water county paved roads.

You mentioned forestry, so naturally I think of logging roads.  Technically
it's public land, so there's no restriction to access, but for all intents
and purposes, they are highway=track.

The
> first is "highway=path" with appropriate notations for what uses are
> permitted, the second is "highway=track" (I could add "access=yes" but
> I thought that was the default for all highways); the third I'm less
> sure about, and I'm inconsistent between "track" and "unclassified"
> (with restrictions of 15 May-15 October, or whatever the season is).
> These are all roads where I have to keep reassuring my city-bred wife,
> "yes, this is a public road, even if it looks like an abandoned
> driveway!" when driving a 4WD down one.
>

General public access roads, though, in extreme rural areas where the road
is not what city folks would call a road -- probably would be unclassified
with a "surface" qualifier (unpaved, compacted, dirt, earth, whatever).

The description for highway=path says it's generally used for non-motorized
vehicles.  I'd prefer highway=unclassified, also with a surface qualifier.
But...

... I'm not bashing anybody over the head with my opinion, just stating an
alternate point of view.  I'm fine with whatever anybody wants to do as
long as it's consistent and has some kind of rationale behind it.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Kevin Kenny]

I'm usually talking about mapping in much more remote areas, and I've
been using 'track' more to denote more road quality. In some of the
places I go, there are public rights-of-way that haven't been
maintained by the counties in decades, that would still be lawful to
drive on if you had a vehicle that could do it. They range from
"completely grown to trees but you can most likely ride an ATV"
through "mostly used for forestry, and high-clearance vehicles
shouldn't have much problem, but don't try it in a passenger car" to
"pea gravel and sugar sand that someone grades once a season, used as
an auto road in the summer and a snowmobile track in the winter." The
first is "highway=path" with appropriate notations for what uses are
permitted, the second is "highway=track" (I could add "access=yes" but
I thought that was the default for all highways); the third I'm less
sure about, and I'm inconsistent between "track" and "unclassified"
(with restrictions of 15 May-15 October, or whatever the season is).
These are all roads where I have to keep reassuring my city-bred wife,
"yes, this is a public road, even if it looks like an abandoned
driveway!" when driving a 4WD down one.

These are all legally public highways. Many of them are of a
classification that allows a landowner to gate them to restrain
livestock while allowing the stock to cross the road, as long as the
gate is left unlocked so that a traveler can pass, so they might be
gated and still public.



On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>
> Eric Ladner  writes:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:58 AM Greg Troxel  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Kevin Kenny  writes:
>>>
>>> > OK, 'residential' if it looks like 'subdivision', 'unclassified'
>>> > otherwise (as long as it's drivable in, say, my daughter's car rather
>>> > than my 4-wheeler). Got it.
>>>
>>> I also see a distinction between residential/unclassified as denoting a
>>> legal road (around me, carved-out parcel wise from the surrounding land)
>>> vs track and some service denoting a non-legal-road.  However, others
>>> see the physical and legal attributes as separate.
>>>
>> My understanding of the description of "unclassified" is unclassified is a
>> step between residential and tertiary.   It's a connecting road, minor
>> connector, whatever, that doesn't have residential on it, but it's not high
>> enough in classification to make it a tertiary road.
>
> I agree with that notion.
>
>> I usually use it for roads in industrial complexes, loops around malls,
>> business complexes, or other connectors/roads where there's no obvious
>> residential around.
>
> Mostly agree, but I only use it for legal roads, not driveways or
> private roads.  Meaning someplace where (in new england) it's legally
> separate and the public has a right of access.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Eric Ladner  wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:58 AM Greg Troxel  wrote:
>
>>
>> Kevin Kenny  writes:
>>
>> > OK, 'residential' if it looks like 'subdivision', 'unclassified'
>> > otherwise (as long as it's drivable in, say, my daughter's car rather
>> > than my 4-wheeler). Got it.
>>
>> I also see a distinction between residential/unclassified as denoting a
>> legal road (around me, carved-out parcel wise from the surrounding land)
>> vs track and some service denoting a non-legal-road.  However, others
>> see the physical and legal attributes as separate.
>>
>>
> My understanding of the description of "unclassified" is unclassified is a
> step between residential and tertiary.   It's a connecting road, minor
> connector, whatever, that doesn't have residential on it, but it's not high
> enough in classification to make it a tertiary road.
>

Generally speaking, yes.  It's roughly the BFE version of residential.


> I usually use it for roads in industrial complexes, loops around malls,
> business complexes, or other connectors/roads where there's no obvious
> residential around.
>

That might work in some situations but for the most part, that's
highway=service; service=*
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Greg Troxel]

Eric Ladner  writes:

> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:58 AM Greg Troxel  wrote:
>
>>
>> Kevin Kenny  writes:
>>
>> > OK, 'residential' if it looks like 'subdivision', 'unclassified'
>> > otherwise (as long as it's drivable in, say, my daughter's car rather
>> > than my 4-wheeler). Got it.
>>
>> I also see a distinction between residential/unclassified as denoting a
>> legal road (around me, carved-out parcel wise from the surrounding land)
>> vs track and some service denoting a non-legal-road.  However, others
>> see the physical and legal attributes as separate.
>>
> My understanding of the description of "unclassified" is unclassified is a
> step between residential and tertiary.   It's a connecting road, minor
> connector, whatever, that doesn't have residential on it, but it's not high
> enough in classification to make it a tertiary road.

I agree with that notion.

> I usually use it for roads in industrial complexes, loops around malls,
> business complexes, or other connectors/roads where there's no obvious
> residential around.

Mostly agree, but I only use it for legal roads, not driveways or
private roads.  Meaning someplace where (in new england) it's legally
separate and the public has a right of access.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Eric Ladner]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:58 AM Greg Troxel  wrote:

>
> Kevin Kenny  writes:
>
> > OK, 'residential' if it looks like 'subdivision', 'unclassified'
> > otherwise (as long as it's drivable in, say, my daughter's car rather
> > than my 4-wheeler). Got it.
>
> I also see a distinction between residential/unclassified as denoting a
> legal road (around me, carved-out parcel wise from the surrounding land)
> vs track and some service denoting a non-legal-road.  However, others
> see the physical and legal attributes as separate.
>
>
My understanding of the description of "unclassified" is unclassified is a
step between residential and tertiary.   It's a connecting road, minor
connector, whatever, that doesn't have residential on it, but it's not high
enough in classification to make it a tertiary road.

I usually use it for roads in industrial complexes, loops around malls,
business complexes, or other connectors/roads where there's no obvious
residential around.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Greg Troxel]

Kevin Kenny  writes:

> OK, 'residential' if it looks like 'subdivision', 'unclassified'
> otherwise (as long as it's drivable in, say, my daughter's car rather
> than my 4-wheeler). Got it.

I also see a distinction between residential/unclassified as denoting a
legal road (around me, carved-out parcel wise from the surrounding land)
vs track and some service denoting a non-legal-road.  However, others
see the physical and legal attributes as separate.

If you do change a legal road to track because of poor condition, please
add access=yes if that is how it is.  highway=residential has a pretty
safe access=yes default, and I find that most highway=track are not
actually access=yes, even though most do not have tags.  This is further
messy on rendering, as it might be that tracks should be rendered with
an access color if they are access=yes, and not colored if they are
access=private.

> I suspect that 'residential'/'unclassified' right now is almost a
> difference without a distinction.

In the US, that's true.  Driving in Scotland recently gave me more
insight into the UK origins of the classification.

> I suppose that 'residential' might be a weak indication to a router to
> avoid the route, but the consequences of getting it wrong don't appear
> to be terribly severe.  Which is a relief.

I would say that a router avoiding residential is incorrect, unless it's
a tiny bit of avoidance.   It should really be about speeds, width,
lights, etc.

As for where Richard Welty draws the line, if there are a lot of houses
on 4 acre lots, I don't think that's iffy.  The questions to me is not
subdivision but

  whether most of the landuse along the road is residential or not

and the much harder

  whether much of the traffic is to/from residential vs other, which is
  even harder for collector roads to neighborhoods and what you call
  through

in the end I tink where this line is drawn is very far down on the OSM
problem list.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Kevin Kenny]

OK, 'residential' if it looks like 'subdivision', 'unclassified'
otherwise (as long as it's drivable in, say, my daughter's car rather
than my 4-wheeler). Got it.

I suspect that 'residential'/'unclassified' right now is almost a
difference without a distinction. I suppose that 'residential' might
be a weak indication to a router to avoid the route, but the
consequences of getting it wrong don't appear to be terribly severe.
Which is a relief.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Richard Welty  wrote:
> On 6/3/16 5:13 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>> Can someone review for me the 'rural residential' problem?
> the short version is that we are supposed to use residential
> in truly residential areas and unclassified for generic town
> roads. in tiger, there is no distinction between the two and so
> everything was imported as residential.
>
> i leave it residential in areas that have a subdivision vibe
> going - multiple closely spaced houses or comparatively small
> building lots, but change it to unclassified if it's just a bunch
> of homes that have been built along old farm roads over the
> years. the section of the road i live on is slightly borderline,
> or would be if the lots were smaller, but most of them are 4 acres
> or more.
>
> richard
>
> --
> rwe...@averillpark.net
>  Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
>  OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
>  Java - Web Applications - Search
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Richard Welty]

On 6/3/16 5:13 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> Can someone review for me the 'rural residential' problem?
the short version is that we are supposed to use residential
in truly residential areas and unclassified for generic town
roads. in tiger, there is no distinction between the two and so
everything was imported as residential.

i leave it residential in areas that have a subdivision vibe
going - multiple closely spaced houses or comparatively small
building lots, but change it to unclassified if it's just a bunch
of homes that have been built along old farm roads over the
years. the section of the road i live on is slightly borderline,
or would be if the lots were smaller, but most of them are 4 acres
or more.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Steven Johnson]

I typically correct the geometry and delete the 'TIGER:reviewed=no', but
leave the rest because I'm superstitious...

-- SEJ
-- twitter: @geomantic
-- skype: sejohnson8

A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely
of jokes. --*Ludwig Wittgenstein*

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Russell Deffner 
wrote:

> Hi Kevin, I'll try to add some context. Here's a neat use for the new OSM
> Analytics tool developed by HOT:
> http://osm-analytics.org/#/compare/polygon:~lwbS}lpoFipQYwJawGbnQxD/2008...now/highways
>
> If you don't see 'blue' roads, zoom in until you do and then swipe
> left/right - you can see the original TIGER roads were 'relatively
> accurate', i.e. you can follow X road, turn left on Y, etc, etc. but
> position and geometry is 'horrible'. And yes, there's many 'ghost roads',
> etc. which maybe once was a track that the power company or someone used to
> 'get back into the woods/cut-across/etc.' but are not 'roads' as the
> average reasonable person would consider. Definitely take a look at
> Wandcrest Park for a 'what the heck happened there' that took a drive back
> in there to figure out.
>
> FYI, of course anyone is welcome to critique (and several have) my 'home
> area'; i.e. I realized from day 1 I would probably be one of, if not the
> only, OSM-er in Park County, Colorado:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/439376 - I am basically working it
> from north to south, but as Wolfgang said - some of the things/ways I
> mapped early on, I do very differently now and it will forever be a work in
> progress. One of those things was my first focus was on cleaning up road
> geometry; so no, I didn't add surface or smoothness, etc. tags. Around here
> I can show you a paved road that you might not want to drive your
> high-clearance vehicle down, and a dirt road that people drive their
> low-clearance 'race cars' down at high speeds. Point being, it's not a
> 'simple' equation to show 'quality' of roads.
>
> =Russ
>
>
> ___
> 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] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Russell Deffner]

Hi Kevin, I'll try to add some context. Here's a neat use for the new OSM 
Analytics tool developed by HOT: 
http://osm-analytics.org/#/compare/polygon:~lwbS}lpoFipQYwJawGbnQxD/2008...now/highways
  

If you don't see 'blue' roads, zoom in until you do and then swipe left/right - 
you can see the original TIGER roads were 'relatively accurate', i.e. you can 
follow X road, turn left on Y, etc, etc. but position and geometry is 
'horrible'. And yes, there's many 'ghost roads', etc. which maybe once was a 
track that the power company or someone used to 'get back into the 
woods/cut-across/etc.' but are not 'roads' as the average reasonable person 
would consider. Definitely take a look at Wandcrest Park for a 'what the heck 
happened there' that took a drive back in there to figure out.

FYI, of course anyone is welcome to critique (and several have) my 'home area'; 
i.e. I realized from day 1 I would probably be one of, if not the only, OSM-er 
in Park County, Colorado: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/439376 - I am 
basically working it from north to south, but as Wolfgang said - some of the 
things/ways I mapped early on, I do very differently now and it will forever be 
a work in progress. One of those things was my first focus was on cleaning up 
road geometry; so no, I didn't add surface or smoothness, etc. tags. Around 
here I can show you a paved road that you might not want to drive your 
high-clearance vehicle down, and a dirt road that people drive their 
low-clearance 'race cars' down at high speeds. Point being, it's not a 'simple' 
equation to show 'quality' of roads. 

=Russ 


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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Kevin Kenny]

Can someone review for me the 'rural residential' problem?

I haven't done a lot of editing away of TIGER tags, although I've
wanted to - a lot of the areas where I've been mapping have had
virtually no TIGER review whatsoever and the garish overlays in JOSM
are annoying. Some of the areas I work on are densely wooded, and the
roads aren't always traceable on aerial photos, so MapRoulette won't
help, but I do gather GPS tracks and check the alignment. A lot of the
TIGER roads are simply hallucinations - roads in places where no road
could exist or ever have existed. The best I ever found went right up
the fall line of a 2000 foot cliff. I think whoever digitized for
TIGER might have had a particular obsolete [1903] USGS topo that
showed a dashed line for a climbing route that once existed in there.
I delete hallucinatory highways..

I haven't worried much about the 'highway=' classification, except
that I downgrade to 'track' if it looks as if I'd want a high-profile
vehicle in anything but the best weather, or to 'path' if you're not
allowed to drive on it.

I suppose that I'm breaking some rule that will screw up someone's
routing?  If so, I'm sorry. Chalk it up to ignorance, and well, I
haven't done very many of these. (I mostly edit other things than
TIGER cleanup.) What should I be looking for with 'residential', and
what is the alternative tagging if I don't find it?

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Peter Dobratz <pe...@dobratz.us> wrote:
> JOSM does automatically discard some TIGER:* tags.  There's a list of keys
> in the tags.discardable JOSM preference item.  Among the list of tags that
> JOSM automatically deletes are:
> tiger:source
> tiger:separated
> tiger:tlid
> tiger:upload_uuid
>
> These tags are hidden from the editor so you don't normally see them.  They
> are automatically removed from any objects that you modify.  You may notice
> them if you are looking at the history of an object in JOSM.
>
> That being said, I delete the other tiger:* from roads as I am editing them.
> Usually, I am verifying addr:* tags of things along the road and checking
> that the addr:street matches the name of the road.  I also often remove the
> name_1, name_2, etc tags that came from the TIGER import.  Where
> appropriate, I retain them in alt_name or old_name.
>
> Peter
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Steve Friedl <st...@unixwiz.net> wrote:
>>
>> Ø  Unless something changed, I think both Potlatch and JOSM will remove
>> the ‘junk’ tags from TIGER if you delete the reviewed=no
>>
>>
>>
>> I’ve deleted thousands of tiger:reviewed tags (after proper review) and
>> have never seen JOSM take anything else along for the ride.  JOSM *does*
>> remove the yellow glow around ways once you remove tiger:reviewed, but
>> that’s all I’ve seen.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have very much wanted to dump the tags that have no obvious use for OSM,
>> but had no idea if somebody else, somewhere, might use them: probably not,
>> but it didn’t feel like it was my call to make. I’d love for there to be a
>> consensus on this.
>>
>>
>>
>> So the only things I’ve removed are tiger:reviewed, plus spurious
>> additional tags that duplicate existing ones (tiger:zip_left_1 when it’s the
>> same as tiger:zip_left).
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Russell Deffner [mailto:russdeff...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 8:45 AM
>> To: 'Adam Franco' <adamfra...@gmail.com>; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
>>
>>
>>
>> Oops, sorry Adam, replied directly to you versus the list; here’s the
>> message:
>>
>>
>>
>> My thoughts:
>>
>>
>>
>> Unless something changed, I think both Potlatch and JOSM will remove the
>> ‘junk’ tags from TIGER if you delete the reviewed=no. Maybe this is not the
>> case with iD?
>>
>>
>>
>> As far as classification; please note that it is not about whether the
>> road is rural or not; it’s the function – there have been people who started
>> changing all ‘dirt roads’ to track around me in rural Colorado – this is NOT
>> correct. Most of the ‘dirt roads’ around here are 100% verifiably
>> “residential”. So please don’t encourage mass changing of classification
>> based on anything but function of the roadway.
>>
>>
>>
>> =Russ
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Adam Franco [mailto:adamfra...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 9:28 AM
>> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
&g

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Peter Dobratz]

JOSM does automatically discard some TIGER:* tags.  There's a list of keys
in the tags.discardable JOSM preference item.  Among the list of tags that
JOSM automatically deletes are:
tiger:source
tiger:separated
tiger:tlid
tiger:upload_uuid

These tags are hidden from the editor so you don't normally see them.  They
are automatically removed from any objects that you modify.  You may notice
them if you are looking at the history of an object in JOSM.

That being said, I delete the other tiger:* from roads as I am editing
them.  Usually, I am verifying addr:* tags of things along the road and
checking that the addr:street matches the name of the road.  I also often
remove the name_1, name_2, etc tags that came from the TIGER import.  Where
appropriate, I retain them in alt_name or old_name.

Peter

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Steve Friedl <st...@unixwiz.net> wrote:

> Ø  Unless something changed, I think both Potlatch and JOSM will remove
> the ‘junk’ tags from TIGER if you delete the reviewed=no
>
>
>
> I’ve deleted thousands of tiger:reviewed tags (after proper review) and
> have never seen JOSM take anything else along for the ride.  JOSM **does**
> remove the yellow glow around ways once you remove tiger:reviewed, but
> that’s all I’ve seen.
>
>
>
> I have very much wanted to dump the tags that have no obvious use for OSM,
> but had no idea if somebody else, somewhere, might use them: probably not,
> but it didn’t feel like it was my call to make. I’d love for there to be a
> consensus on this.
>
>
>
> So the only things I’ve removed are tiger:reviewed, plus spurious
> additional tags that duplicate existing ones (tiger:zip_left_1 when it’s
> the same as tiger:zip_left).
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> *From:* Russell Deffner [mailto:russdeff...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 03, 2016 8:45 AM
> *To:* 'Adam Franco' <adamfra...@gmail.com>; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
>
>
>
> Oops, sorry Adam, replied directly to you versus the list; here’s the
> message:
>
>
>
> My thoughts:
>
>
>
> Unless something changed, I think both Potlatch and JOSM will remove the
> ‘junk’ tags from TIGER if you delete the reviewed=no. Maybe this is not the
> case with iD?
>
>
>
> As far as classification; please note that it is not about whether the
> road is rural or not; it’s the function – there have been people who
> started changing all ‘dirt roads’ to track around me in rural Colorado –
> this is NOT correct. Most of the ‘dirt roads’ around here are 100%
> verifiably “residential”. So please don’t encourage mass changing of
> classification based on anything but function of the roadway.
>
>
>
> =Russ
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Franco [mailto:adamfra...@gmail.com <adamfra...@gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 03, 2016 9:28 AM
> *To:* talk-us@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
>
>
>
> Just some more feedback on the idea of a TIGER rural-residential challenge
> based on cleanup I've done throughout much of Vermont:
>
>- Most of the roads in rural areas should have their highway= changed
>to something other than residential. (well known issue).
>- Surface tags would be GREAT! I've added surface tags to most roads
>in Vermont, but have not quite gotten to all of them yet.
>- At least here in Vermont, "private road" means that the ownership
>and maintenance of the road is the responsibility of the resident[s], not
>that "access=private". We have many private roads due to low densities of
>residences and Towns generally won't take over ownership/maintenance unless
>there are at least 3 residences and the proposal passes a public vote. The
>TIGER import mistakenly tagged many private-roads as "access=private". It
>would be great to remove this tag if it hasn't been added by a person.
>
> If there is any way to help out with this effort I'd love to lend a hand.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:18 AM, James Umbanhowar <jumba...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Funny, I just looked at the MapRoulette beta and noticed that you were
> already doing this.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 10:00 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote:
> > Minor suggestion for this MapRoulette challenge:  Could you structure
> > it by state (or other geographic region, county?) and do each region
> > sequentially.  I, personally, think it would be neat to see areas get
> > "done" as far as Tiger clean up.
> >
> > Either way, thanks for these.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Fri, 20

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Russell Deffner]

Yes, ok – so ‘aging myself’ a bit – but I did all my locale TIGER cleanup with 
P2, so my practice was to review/almost always fix geometry, then look at 
‘function’/classification of the roadway, then just delete the reviewed tag and 
automagically those uid tags and such would go away. So it seems now we are 
talking that even more original TIGER tags are ‘useless’ and should be removed, 
which I have no problems with, I’m sure there were several dozen I just deleted 
everything (sometimes the entire way) because the road was actually a driveway 
or otherwise completely wrong.

=Russ

 

From: Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 10:03 AM
To: Steve Friedl; Russell Deffner; Adam Franco; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

 

 

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:52 AM Steve Friedl <st...@unixwiz.net> wrote:

Ø  Unless something changed, I think both Potlatch and JOSM will remove the 
‘junk’ tags from TIGER if you delete the reviewed=no

 

I’ve deleted thousands of tiger:reviewed tags (after proper review) and have 
never seen JOSM take anything else along for the ride.  JOSM *does* remove the 
yellow glow around ways once you remove tiger:reviewed, but that’s all I’ve 
seen.

Russell is probably referring to this: 
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/7915 

I think most of these are gone by now.

 

 Harald.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Harald Kliems]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:52 AM Steve Friedl  wrote:

> Ø  Unless something changed, I think both Potlatch and JOSM will remove
> the ‘junk’ tags from TIGER if you delete the reviewed=no
>
>
>
> I’ve deleted thousands of tiger:reviewed tags (after proper review) and
> have never seen JOSM take anything else along for the ride.  JOSM **does**
> remove the yellow glow around ways once you remove tiger:reviewed, but
> that’s all I’ve seen.
>
Russell is probably referring to this:
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/7915
I think most of these are gone by now.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Steve Friedl]

*  Unless something changed, I think both Potlatch and JOSM will remove the 
‘junk’ tags from TIGER if you delete the reviewed=no

 

I’ve deleted thousands of tiger:reviewed tags (after proper review) and have 
never seen JOSM take anything else along for the ride.  JOSM *does* remove the 
yellow glow around ways once you remove tiger:reviewed, but that’s all I’ve 
seen.

 

I have very much wanted to dump the tags that have no obvious use for OSM, but 
had no idea if somebody else, somewhere, might use them: probably not, but it 
didn’t feel like it was my call to make. I’d love for there to be a consensus 
on this.

 

So the only things I’ve removed are tiger:reviewed, plus spurious additional 
tags that duplicate existing ones (tiger:zip_left_1 when it’s the same as 
tiger:zip_left).

 

Steve

 

From: Russell Deffner [mailto:russdeff...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 8:45 AM
To: 'Adam Franco' <adamfra...@gmail.com>; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

 

Oops, sorry Adam, replied directly to you versus the list; here’s the message: 

 

My thoughts:

 

Unless something changed, I think both Potlatch and JOSM will remove the ‘junk’ 
tags from TIGER if you delete the reviewed=no. Maybe this is not the case with 
iD?

 

As far as classification; please note that it is not about whether the road is 
rural or not; it’s the function – there have been people who started changing 
all ‘dirt roads’ to track around me in rural Colorado – this is NOT correct. 
Most of the ‘dirt roads’ around here are 100% verifiably “residential”. So 
please don’t encourage mass changing of classification based on anything but 
function of the roadway.

 

=Russ 

 

From: Adam Franco [mailto:adamfra...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 9:28 AM
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org>  Openstreetmap
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

 

Just some more feedback on the idea of a TIGER rural-residential challenge 
based on cleanup I've done throughout much of Vermont:

*   Most of the roads in rural areas should have their highway= changed to 
something other than residential. (well known issue).
*   Surface tags would be GREAT! I've added surface tags to most roads in 
Vermont, but have not quite gotten to all of them yet.
*   At least here in Vermont, "private road" means that the ownership and 
maintenance of the road is the responsibility of the resident[s], not that 
"access=private". We have many private roads due to low densities of residences 
and Towns generally won't take over ownership/maintenance unless there are at 
least 3 residences and the proposal passes a public vote. The TIGER import 
mistakenly tagged many private-roads as "access=private". It would be great to 
remove this tag if it hasn't been added by a person.

If there is any way to help out with this effort I'd love to lend a hand. 

 

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:18 AM, James Umbanhowar <jumba...@gmail.com 
<mailto:jumba...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Funny, I just looked at the MapRoulette beta and noticed that you were
already doing this.




On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 10:00 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote:
> Minor suggestion for this MapRoulette challenge:  Could you structure
> it by state (or other geographic region, county?) and do each region
> sequentially.  I, personally, think it would be neat to see areas get
> "done" as far as Tiger clean up.  
>
> Either way, thanks for these.
>
> James
>
> On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 10:21 +0200, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> >
> > Well said. I have space in my basement also. 
> >
> > I am eager to launch a MapRoulette challenge for untouched rural
> > ‘residential’ roads - a challenge which will probably take some
> > time
> > to complete. If someone can furnish a good Overpass query for this,
> > please go ahead and do it.
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> > >
> > > On Jun 3, 2016, at 8:55 AM, Richard Fairhurst <richard@systemed.n 
> > > <mailto:richard@systemed.n%0b> 
> > > et
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > There is a special corner of hell/Steve's basement for people who
> > > remove
> > > tiger:reviewed=no on rural unpaved roads without changing the
> > > highway tag or
> > > adding a surface tag.
> > ___
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org> 
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Russell Deffner]

Oops, sorry Adam, replied directly to you versus the list; here’s the message: 

 

My thoughts:

 

Unless something changed, I think both Potlatch and JOSM will remove the ‘junk’ 
tags from TIGER if you delete the reviewed=no. Maybe this is not the case with 
iD?

 

As far as classification; please note that it is not about whether the road is 
rural or not; it’s the function – there have been people who started changing 
all ‘dirt roads’ to track around me in rural Colorado – this is NOT correct. 
Most of the ‘dirt roads’ around here are 100% verifiably “residential”. So 
please don’t encourage mass changing of classification based on anything but 
function of the roadway.

 

=Russ 

 

From: Adam Franco [mailto:adamfra...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 9:28 AM
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

 

Just some more feedback on the idea of a TIGER rural-residential challenge 
based on cleanup I've done throughout much of Vermont:

*   Most of the roads in rural areas should have their highway= changed to 
something other than residential. (well known issue).
*   Surface tags would be GREAT! I've added surface tags to most roads in 
Vermont, but have not quite gotten to all of them yet.
*   At least here in Vermont, "private road" means that the ownership and 
maintenance of the road is the responsibility of the resident[s], not that 
"access=private". We have many private roads due to low densities of residences 
and Towns generally won't take over ownership/maintenance unless there are at 
least 3 residences and the proposal passes a public vote. The TIGER import 
mistakenly tagged many private-roads as "access=private". It would be great to 
remove this tag if it hasn't been added by a person.

If there is any way to help out with this effort I'd love to lend a hand. 

 

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:18 AM, James Umbanhowar <jumba...@gmail.com> wrote:

Funny, I just looked at the MapRoulette beta and noticed that you were
already doing this.




On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 10:00 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote:
> Minor suggestion for this MapRoulette challenge:  Could you structure
> it by state (or other geographic region, county?) and do each region
> sequentially.  I, personally, think it would be neat to see areas get
> "done" as far as Tiger clean up.  
>
> Either way, thanks for these.
>
> James
>
> On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 10:21 +0200, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> >
> > Well said. I have space in my basement also. 
> >
> > I am eager to launch a MapRoulette challenge for untouched rural
> > ‘residential’ roads - a challenge which will probably take some
> > time
> > to complete. If someone can furnish a good Overpass query for this,
> > please go ahead and do it.
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> > >
> > > On Jun 3, 2016, at 8:55 AM, Richard Fairhurst <richard@systemed.n 
> > > <mailto:richard@systemed.n%0b> 
> > > et
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > There is a special corner of hell/Steve's basement for people who
> > > remove
> > > tiger:reviewed=no on rural unpaved roads without changing the
> > > highway tag or
> > > adding a surface tag.
> > ___
> > 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

 

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[James Umbanhowar]

Funny, I just looked at the MapRoulette beta and noticed that you were
already doing this.



On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 10:00 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote:
> Minor suggestion for this MapRoulette challenge:  Could you structure
> it by state (or other geographic region, county?) and do each region
> sequentially.  I, personally, think it would be neat to see areas get
> "done" as far as Tiger clean up.  
> 
> Either way, thanks for these.
> 
> James
> 
> On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 10:21 +0200, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> > 
> > Well said. I have space in my basement also. 
> > 
> > I am eager to launch a MapRoulette challenge for untouched rural
> > ‘residential’ roads - a challenge which will probably take some
> > time
> > to complete. If someone can furnish a good Overpass query for this,
> > please go ahead and do it.
> > 
> > Martijn
> > 
> > > 
> > > On Jun 3, 2016, at 8:55 AM, Richard Fairhurst  > > et
> > > > 
> > > > wrote:
> > > There is a special corner of hell/Steve's basement for people who
> > > remove
> > > tiger:reviewed=no on rural unpaved roads without changing the
> > > highway tag or
> > > adding a surface tag.
> > ___
> > 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] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[James Umbanhowar]

Minor suggestion for this MapRoulette challenge:  Could you structure
it by state (or other geographic region, county?) and do each region
sequentially.  I, personally, think it would be neat to see areas get
"done" as far as Tiger clean up.  

Either way, thanks for these.

James

On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 10:21 +0200, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Well said. I have space in my basement also. 
> 
> I am eager to launch a MapRoulette challenge for untouched rural
> ‘residential’ roads - a challenge which will probably take some time
> to complete. If someone can furnish a good Overpass query for this,
> please go ahead and do it.
> 
> Martijn
> 
> > On Jun 3, 2016, at 8:55 AM, Richard Fairhurst  > > wrote:
> > 
> > There is a special corner of hell/Steve's basement for people who
> > remove
> > tiger:reviewed=no on rural unpaved roads without changing the
> > highway tag or
> > adding a surface tag.
> ___
> 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] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Martijn van Exel]

Well said. I have space in my basement also. 

I am eager to launch a MapRoulette challenge for untouched rural ‘residential’ 
roads - a challenge which will probably take some time to complete. If someone 
can furnish a good Overpass query for this, please go ahead and do it.

Martijn

> On Jun 3, 2016, at 8:55 AM, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> 
> There is a special corner of hell/Steve's basement for people who remove
> tiger:reviewed=no on rural unpaved roads without changing the highway tag or
> adding a surface tag.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Madeline Steele wrote:
> What do you all think about this?

The sine qua non for me is that the absence of a tiger:reviewed= tag (or one
set to =yes) means that you can trust the value of the highway= tag.

This is especially true of rural areas where unreviewed highway=residential
covers a multitude of sins.

There is a special corner of hell/Steve's basement for people who remove
tiger:reviewed=no on rural unpaved roads without changing the highway tag or
adding a surface tag.

cheers
Richard




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Best-practices-for-dealing-with-old-TIGER-tags-tp5874640p5874647.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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Martijn van Exel]

I usually remove all TIGER tags as I update roads. 
Martijn

> On Jun 2, 2016, at 10:59 PM, Madeline Steele  
> wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> 
> 
> I was hoping to open a discussion on current best practices for dealing with 
> old TIGER tags. I know this has been covered here in the past, but I think 
> it’s been a few years and it seems possible that methods have shifted.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m from Portland (Oregon J) and on many streets, TIGER tags have been 
> completely removed, while on others, people have left only the tiger:county 
> tags. Sometimes, you see tiger:zip_left and tiger:zip_right too, while in 
> other cases there are zip_left and zip_right keys instead. In many cases, the 
> following 6 TIGER tags remain: tiger:cfcc, tiger:county, tiger:name_base, 
> tiger:reviewed, tiger:zip_left, and tiger:zip_right.
> 
> 
> 
> The approach that is preferred at TriMet (where I work) is that if we are 
> able to check the geometry of the street against fairly recent imagery 
> (improving it if needed) and verify the name of the street, from either our 
> local jurisdictional centerlines or the latest TIGER TMS layer, then we 
> remove all of the TIGER tags. We see that as being adequate to remove the 
> TIGER:reviewed tag (especially when multiple mappers have edited the way 
> since the initial import, which is typical). We think that the other TIGER 
> tags are not needed as they’re mostly comprised of information that isn’t 
> really appropriate for the street ways (zip code and county, which take up 
> less space and are easier to keep up-to-date when maintained as separate 
> boundary polygons) and attributes that can be derived from other fields 
> (e.g., prefix, basename, suffix). While it could be handy to have these 
> address components broken out, it adds bulk and requires updating several 
> fields when a name is changed. Further, the TIGER attributes are mostly 
> really outdated at this point as they come from 2005 data and have rarely 
> been updated by mappers.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you all think about this?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks much,
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline
> 
> ___
> 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] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Richard Welty]

On 6/2/16 4:59 PM, Madeline Steele wrote:
>
> The approach that is preferred at TriMet (where I work) is that if we
> are able to check the geometry of the street against fairly recent
> imagery (improving it if needed) and verify the name of the street,
> from either our local jurisdictional centerlines or the latest TIGER
> TMS layer, then we remove all of the TIGER tags. We see that as being
> adequate to remove the TIGER:reviewed tag (especially when multiple
> mappers have edited the way since the initial import, which is
> typical). We think that the other TIGER tags are not needed as they’re
> mostly comprised of information that isn’t really appropriate for the
> street ways (zip code and county, which take up less space and are
> easier to keep up-to-date when maintained as separate boundary
> polygons) and attributes that can be derived from other fields (e.g.,
> prefix, basename, suffix). While it could be handy to have these
> address components broken out, it adds bulk and requires updating
> several fields when a name is changed. Further, the TIGER attributes
> are mostly really outdated at this point as they come from 2005 data
> and have rarely been updated by mappers.
>
>
> What do you all think about this?
>
>
i usually leave the county tags, and remove all the others. there are rare
cases where a road has a historic name but is no longer signed and i may
in that case convert the tiger name into an old_name tag. i think the zip
tags from tiger are without value.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us