On Jul 29, 2010, at 5:41 PM, Anthony wrote:
In any case, I disagree that it's better to leave information you know
to be wrong in rather than deleting it. Perhaps that's our
fundamental disagreement.
For my part in the conversation, I *agree* with you that people
should delete (or fix when p
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:33 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>> The only tiger tag that is important to keep (to me) is the
>> tiger:tlid, all the other values can be pulled from the original TIGER
>> database provided the TLID.
>
> Unfortunately, t
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Brad Neuhauser
wrote:
> I think that's pretty much covered here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Functional_Classification_System
And it's not polished enough in many areas (the individual states or
even the local metropolitan planning organizations
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Jim McAndrew wrote:
> I-99 is a special case where a congressman wanted a road to go from the PA
> turnpike to I-80, he threw a bunch of money at it, and made up a new number
> to assign to it. The road never really was meant to be an interstate, and I
> think th
On 30 July 2010 03:04, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> If the tlids represent "the original set of data from
>> which the bridge might have come", then it's best off in the history.
>
> And sticking with the theme of "creating a general solution" rather
> than
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Anthony wrote:
> If the tlids represent "the original set of data from
> which the bridge might have come", then it's best off in the history.
And sticking with the theme of "creating a general solution" rather
than "maintaining kludgy tiger-specific hacks", maybe
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 20:26 -0400, Anthony wrote:
>> But as I've shown (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/44945783)
>> the tlids don't even make sense. "tiger:tlid =
>> 86486485:86486486:86486387;
>> 86507262:86489492:86507324:86490164:8
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 20:26 -0400, Anthony wrote:
> But as I've shown (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/44945783)
> the tlids don't even make sense. "tiger:tlid =
> 86486485:86486486:86486387;
> 86507262:86489492:86507324:86490164:86489590:86489573:86490037:86489467:86490875:86490202:864995
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:30 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> On 30 July 2010 02:26, Anthony wrote:
>> But as I've shown (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/44945783)
>> the tlids don't even make sense. "tiger:tlid =
>> 86486485:86486486:86486387;
>> 86507262:86489492:86507324:86490164:86489
On 30 July 2010 02:26, Anthony wrote:
> But as I've shown (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/44945783)
> the tlids don't even make sense. "tiger:tlid =
> 86486485:86486486:86486387;
> 86507262:86489492:86507324:86490164:86489590:86489573:86490037:86489467:86490875:86490202:86499582:86497723
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Mike N. wrote:
> Better start putting them all back. They are documented in the wiki.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TIGER_to_OSM_Attribute_Map
That's an explanation of how to convert the tiger fields into OSM
keys. The only preserved data is:
"The Tig
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Jim McAndrew wrote:
> It would be great if attributes could be assigned to a number of ways, at
> least from a normalization standpoint.
> From a UI standpoint, I don't really know how it would be done, but it could
> be possible.
> Modifying all the existing OSM d
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Alan Millar wrote:
> Specifically, RIGHT NOW, you are screwing with my ability to improve
> mkgmap. Stop deleting them until you provide a better replacement
> functionality.
What is it that you are using this info for in mkgmap? Or is this theoretical?
Let me
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> Leave
>> the hard work of the people that laid the groundwork before you *alone*.
>
> Let's look at an example of what it means to leave that work alone.
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/brows
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Alan Millar wrote:
> >> Furthermore, don't store redundant data in the OSM database. There's
> >> absolutely no excuse for having 200 ways which all say name=Cain Rd,
> >> name_base=Cain, name_type=Rd. It's abso
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Alan Millar wrote:
> >> Furthermore, don't store redundant data in the OSM database. There's
> >> absolutely no excuse for having 200 ways which all say name=Cain Rd,
> >> name_base=Cain, name_type=Rd. It's abso
A couple of different users have recently been removing all the tiger:*=*
tags from roads in the process of other edits to them.
I'm among them. Mostly because they are not documented in the wiki.
Better start putting them all back. They are documented in the wiki.
http://wiki.openstreetma
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Alan Millar wrote:
>> Furthermore, don't store redundant data in the OSM database. There's
>> absolutely no excuse for having 200 ways which all say name=Cain Rd,
>> name_base=Cain, name_type=Rd. It's absolutely terrible design.
>
> Patches welcome. Please contr
>
> Furthermore, don't store redundant data in the OSM database. There's
> absolutely no excuse for having 200 ways which all say name=Cain Rd,
> name_base=Cain, name_type=Rd. It's absolutely terrible design.
>
Patches welcome. Please contribute a fix.
So come up with a better design, define i
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:40 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> On 30 July 2010 00:58, Anthony wrote:
>> Please define them in the wiki, and I'll keep them. Unless I have a
>> definition, I have no way of determining if they're correct or not.
>
> So you're going to delete anything you can't verify
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> Leave
> the hard work of the people that laid the groundwork before you *alone*.
Let's look at an example of what it means to leave that work alone.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/44945783
A bridge split from the Florida Turnpike.
On 30 July 2010 00:58, Anthony wrote:
> Please define them in the wiki, and I'll keep them. Unless I have a
> definition, I have no way of determining if they're correct or not.
So you're going to delete anything you can't verify? Well good luck.
Cheers
___
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 18:58 -0400, Anthony wrote:
>> Just look in the history for when the way was originally added.
>
> With way combination and splitting, _this_ isn't feasible, either.
> TIGER didn't have any bridges, and so doing this for a
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> So, the guys that actually went out and were nice enough to collect this
> TIGER data and share it with us have names for all these things: TLIDs.
> That's a pretty concrete, real-world meaning to some people.
>
>
> Geez, OSM means lots of dif
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 18:51 -0400, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:33 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> > The only tiger tag that is important to keep (to me) is the
> > tiger:tlid, all the other values can be pulled from the original TIGER
> > database provided the TLID.
>
> Unfortunate
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 18:58 -0400, Anthony wrote:
> >> > However, they also contain the original
> >> > breakdown of the prefix, root, and suffix before they got combined into
> >> > the
> >> > name and then expanded by the balrog-kun bot - information which will be
> >> > useful in the majority o
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 18:44 -0400, Anthony wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Alan Mintz
>> wrote:
>> > A couple of different users have recently been removing all the tiger:*=*
>> > tags from roads in the process of other edits to the
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 18:44 -0400, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Alan Mintz
> wrote:
> > A couple of different users have recently been removing all the tiger:*=*
> > tags from roads in the process of other edits to them.
>
> I'm among them. Mostly because they are not docume
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:33 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> The only tiger tag that is important to keep (to me) is the
> tiger:tlid, all the other values can be pulled from the original TIGER
> database provided the TLID.
Unfortunately, that's also one of the hardest ones to keep, because it
do
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Alan Mintz
wrote:
> A couple of different users have recently been removing all the tiger:*=*
> tags from roads in the process of other edits to them.
I'm among them. Mostly because they are not documented in the wiki.
> However, they also contain the original
>
On 29 July 2010 19:12, Alan Mintz wrote:
> One responded that it was because they were sometimes wrong (which is, of
> course, true, for those roads that we've corrected) and that they did not
> seem to provide any useful data. However, they also contain the original
> breakdown of the prefix, roo
As a general concept this is bad but in many cases a very good idea. many
tiger roads are completely wrong and there is absolute no value to keep any
of the tags. if a mapper does a significant change and is essentially just
keeping some nodes and the name tag then it's better to remove any referen
I only remove the TIGER tags when either the original name was wrong, or the
area was created by pencil sketchings and so many streets are misplaced.
Other than that, the original TIGER tags are useful to determine the source
or original naming at a glance without needing to request a history du
A couple of different users have recently been removing all the tiger:*=*
tags from roads in the process of other edits to them.
One responded that it was because they were sometimes wrong (which is, of
course, true, for those roads that we've corrected) and that they did not
seem to provide a
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Brad Neuhauser wrote:
> Regarding Matthew's earlier point ("Agreed. There is no observation
> that will tell you whether a road is more important than another road
> that is not where you are. But you can identify physical
> characteristics.
>
this is not true. Th
Thanks Brad.
It may be useful to add data links to the NHPN and HPMS as they provide data
in places where no active state data source link is referenced.
Such as Colorado, Maryland, Texas and others.
C.
Carl Anderson
cander...@spatialfocus.com
carl.ander...@vadose.org
(sent from my phone)
On Ju
; functionally, they are probably both accurate. Physically, the
> secondary road is a much more robust road.
>
> These differences are reflective of regional differences, and I did
> not need to spend much time looking for them. If they are all code
I think that's pretty much covered here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Functional_Classification_System
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Carl Anderson
wrote:
> WRT US Highway classifications
>
> You may want to take a look at the National Highway Planning Network.
> http://www.bts.g
WRT US Highway classifications
You may want to take a look at the National Highway Planning Network.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_atlas_database/2010/zip/nhpn.zip
It contains the state designated functional classifications for some roads
classified as a "Minor Collector
Regarding Matthew's earlier point ("Agreed. There is no observation
that will tell you whether a road is more important than another road
that is not where you are. But you can identify physical
characteristics. A lot of these observations will lead to a coherent
whole."): it seems like if you tak
As someone who has driven on these routes quite a number of times, I can say
that PA roads are not up to the same standards as roads pretty much anywhere
else in the country. When roads come into the state from NJ, they all go
from 3-4 lanes down to two. Which is fine for a rural highway, but not
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 9:40 AM, McGuire, Matthew
wrote:
>> Can you show me an area of the US that's tagged completely objectively?
>
> For example: Interstate 99 near Altoona, PA is coded (AFAIK appropriately) a
> motorway. Over the entire length of the Interstate, it looks like it serves a
> m
> Can you show me an area of the US that's tagged completely objectively?
For example: Interstate 99 near Altoona, PA is coded (AFAIK appropriately) a
motorway. Over the entire length of the Interstate, it looks like it serves a
max average daily traffic of 37,000 vehicles per day
(http://www.i
43 matches
Mail list logo
