On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 17:55:17 -0700, Alan Mintz wrote:
If it's fatiguing for you, I'll accept that, even though I don't see
that myself when using Potlatch or JOSM. Let's modify whatever editor
you use to hide those tags for you if you want.
OK, fix JOSM then.
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:52:31 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
Please keep them. They're not hurting anything.
Mapper fatigue. I don't really see how anything beyond tiger:reviewed=no
and tiger:tlid= tags are useful at this point, save to make tags more
difficult to sift through by human editors.
At the risk of being accused of letting a good argument die...
At 2010-08-07 13:28, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:52:31 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
Please keep them. They're not hurting anything.
Mapper fatigue. I don't really see how anything beyond tiger:reviewed=no
and
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 15:00 -0400, Anthony wrote:
Basically, the only tag I can imagine worth keeping would be the
name_type, name_base, name_* ones, and those should be removed from
the tiger:* namespace. But really before that can be done a standard
should be decided on about how to store
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 9:25 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 July 2010 03:02, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
But road A has been rerouted since the TIGER data was created and now
ends at road C, without touching road B. You can't use shortcuts like
this.
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Alan Millar amillar...@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't seen a conclusion on what people want to see in the naming
convention (see for example the thread at
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2010-April/003138.html).
Just because the conversation is
At 2010-07-30 07:28, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Alan Millar amillar...@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't seen a conclusion on what people want to see in the naming
convention (see for example the thread at
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
There's another, very important use for the tiger:reviewed tag.
As I've said above, that's the one tiger tag I don't remove (until
I've reviewed the way, of course).
You don't seem to have read that message. In it
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Dave Hansen d...@sr71.net 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.
Not in osm context.
Just for that short little bridge? This info should be right (which
means *one* tlid) or it shouldn't be there at all. We shouldn't keep
this crap around just for the hell of it.
By deleting it you're not making it more correct.
Never said I was. But deleting incorrect
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.netalan_mintz%2b...@earthlink.net
wrote:
I really don't understand your argument. It's the nature of OSM that many
people will contribute many types of data, much of which will not be cared
about or understood by the
At 2010-07-30 12:56, Apollinaris Schoell
wrote:
How would I even go about checking? Is this really something
we
should be doing every time we make a bridge?
what a waste of time, let's go mapping instead. this is a wast of
time
I think we should enhance Josm/Potlatch to remove these tags in
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.netalan_mintz%2b...@earthlink.net
wrote:
At 2010-07-30 12:56, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
How would I even go about checking? Is this really something we should
be doing every time we make a bridge?
what a waste of
On 30 July 2010 21:00, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
There's another, very important use for the tiger:reviewed tag.
As I've said above, that's the one tiger tag I don't remove (until
I've reviewed the way, of
On 30 July 2010 22:12, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
Do we really need
the database space that badly?
I've heard arguments on the talk list that this clutters the database
and similarly wikipedia= tags should be massively removed and if at
all, links should be maintained then
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 6:36 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Also note that once there's a photo on flickr that is tagged with an
osm object id and a foursquare.com venue id at the same time, you have
a link between OSM and foursquare.com, no need to duplicate this
information
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
The way I see it is that if I were mapping an area from scratch, nobody
would go adding the TIGER tags. So if I completely redo an area, whether I
use existing ways or draw new ways, there's no reason to keep the TIGER
On 31 July 2010 00:50, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 6:36 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Also note that once there's a photo on flickr that is tagged with an
osm object id and a foursquare.com venue id at the same time, you have
a link
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 8:11 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 July 2010 00:50, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 6:36 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
Also note that once there's a photo on flickr that is tagged with an
osm
On 31 July 2010 02:24, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 8:11 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 July 2010 00:50, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 6:36 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
Also
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 8:28 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 July 2010 02:24, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 8:11 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 31 July 2010 00:50, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On
On 31 July 2010 02:33, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 8:28 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see how it changes anything. If a piece of interstate I-405
is described by one relation or two ways one for each carriage in osm,
and 10
On 31 July 2010 03:02, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 8:44 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 July 2010 02:33, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 8:28 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
I
So are you saying you or someone else will be checking all TLIDs
against the TIGER data and correcting errors and adding missing ones?
I can imagine someone making some clever scripts and then manually
verifying it where there are doubts as a kind of personal project of
the week or something.
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 9:40 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
So are you saying you or someone else will be checking all TLIDs
against the TIGER data and correcting errors and adding missing ones?
I can imagine someone making some clever scripts and then manually
verifying it
On 31 July 2010 04:06, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 9:40 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
So are you saying you or someone else will be checking all TLIDs
against the TIGER data and correcting errors and adding missing ones?
I can imagine
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 10:15 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 July 2010 04:06, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 9:40 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
I can imagine someone making some clever scripts and then manually
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
On 29 July 2010 19:12, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net 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
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net 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
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:33 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 18:44 -0400, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net 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
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Dave Hansen d...@sr71.net wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 18:44 -0400, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
A couple of different users have recently been removing all the tiger:*=*
tags from roads in
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 of cases if we ever
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Dave Hansen d...@sr71.net 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.
rant
Geez, OSM means
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Dave Hansen d...@sr71.net 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
On 30 July 2010 00:58, Anthony o...@inbox.org 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 7:11 PM, Dave Hansen d...@sr71.net 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
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:40 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 July 2010 00:58, Anthony o...@inbox.org 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
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Alan Millar amillar...@gmail.com 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.
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.
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Alan Millar amillar...@gmail.com 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,
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Dave Hansen d...@sr71.net 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.
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Alan Millar amillar...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Jim McAndrew j...@loc8.us 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
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net 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
On 30 July 2010 02:26, Anthony o...@inbox.org 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;
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:30 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 July 2010 02:26, Anthony o...@inbox.org 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;
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;
On 30 July 2010 03:04, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org 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
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:33 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com 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
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
52 matches
Mail list logo
