Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] [Imports-us] Spartanburg County SC road centerlines import
On 10/22/2018 2:56 PM, Rory McCann wrote: Hi Mike. Thanks for the answers, that clears things up. Bt On 10/22/2018 5:00 AM, Rory McCann wrote: >> I'm a little unclear about one big question: What are you doing with the existing data in OSM? Existing OSM data seems to have nearly identical locations to this new data. You're just going to update existing OSM data? Do you know how much existing OSM data needs to be updated? All existing data will be reviewed. Most of it will add the surface attribute and lanes if visible from imagery and remove the tiger:reviewed attribute. So nearly everything will be modified. I'm sorry, maybe I'm having a brain fart, but I'm still confused. It sounds like you're going to look at all existing OSM roads in that county and manually review them? Just going through and fixing them up and removing tiger:* tags, and keeping the existing roads in OSM? That sounds great. But that's a regular map-a-thon, not an import. What do you need this new data for? If I'm reading you right, this new data from the county won't be used at all? Right? You're not going to *replace* the existing OSM data with this new data, right? You're not going to delete the existing OSM data, right? If you (& friends) are going to fix up the roads, you don't need to talk to this list. Just go ahead and do it! That's not an import. Just tracing from the imagery you created from this data isn't an import. That's just using a new imagery source. You can just go ahead and do that. If you want to find new roads that aren't in OSM, load OSM & this new data into postgres, and look for roads in the new dataset that are far (>10m?) from anything in OSM. Should be quicker than humans looking at all. (Do you know how to do that?) There will be 50 to 200 streets of new data used for new subdivisions. I suppose that I could have created sets of data for "These might be renamed", "These might be imported" , "These might be adjusted" , "These might be deleted" (Because a diff doesn't identify which one is right) , then not bothered to mention the additional review which would indeed just be a local project. If this is deemed not to be an import, then we will begin immediately. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Spartanburg County SC road centerlines import
Mike N. wrote: > As one who grew up in a rural area, a country road lined with 4 > houses in a mile would feel "residential" and I would tend to set > it as residential in OSM. That describes most of the rural parts > of this county also, except for roads that don't happen to have > a house. Absolutely, not disputing that - it's simply that tiger:reviewed=no is a good signifier that "the surface type on this road might not be what you'd expect", and for developed countries that's traditionally a paved surface for residential roads. As long as there's some way of discerning that, I'm happy. cheers Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/USA-f5284732.html ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Spartanburg County SC road centerlines import
On 10/22/2018 8:46 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Could I suggest that you act cautiously wrt the tiger:reviewed tag in these two cases? If it's an "unknown highway type" it should probably remain as tiger:reviewed=no. Likewise, if the surface isn't clear, then either tiger:reviewed should continue to be =no, or there should be some other tagging to indicate this (surface=unknown, or surface:reviewed=no, or something). As one who grew up in a rural area, a country road lined with 4 houses in a mile would feel "residential" and I would tend to set it as residential in OSM. That describes most of the rural parts of this county also, except for roads that don't happen to have a house. We could add Bing streetside to the workflow to confirm the surface type in most of the edge cases. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Spartanburg County SC road centerlines import
Mike N. wrote:
> This is a proposed import of road centerlines for Spartanburg County
> SC, based on county GIS data. This will include a systematic review of
> all roads in the county and qualify to remove tiger:reviewed tags.
Looks good!
Browsing through the code and the wiki page, you have:
>else:
>if hwy != '':
>print ('Unknown highway type: ', hwy)
>tags['highway'] = 'residential'
and
> Add surface type as paved if it appears paved in imagery.
Could I suggest that you act cautiously wrt the tiger:reviewed tag in these
two cases?
If it's an "unknown highway type" it should probably remain as
tiger:reviewed=no. Likewise, if the surface isn't clear, then either
tiger:reviewed should continue to be =no, or there should be some other
tagging to indicate this (surface=unknown, or surface:reviewed=no, or
something).
cheers
Richard
--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/USA-f5284732.html
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports-us] Spartanburg County SC road centerlines import
Thank you for your comments. Answers inline. On 10/22/2018 5:00 AM, Rory McCann wrote: On 22/10/2018 05:20, Mike N wrote: This is a proposed import of road centerlines for Spartanburg County SC, based on county GIS data. This will include a systematic review of all roads in the county and qualify to remove tiger:reviewed tags. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Spartanburg_county_road_center_line_import A roads import! There's a few lanes that are weird. lanes=7 for a 6 lane road. It's weird that some roads have lanes on some parts, not all (e.g. "Hollywood Street"). Maybe try to make it consistant? JOSM validator has found a handful of topology errors. There's ~100 examples of roads that aren't connected properly (nodes on top of each other, but not connected). You seem to be defaulting to "highway=residential" a lot (e.g. if you dohn;t know another, or turning 'Gravel' into 'highway=residential surface=gravel'). I don't know a lot about tagging in the USA, but isn't there (wasn't there) some problem with the TIGER data using residential too much? The 'lanes' and highway type were experimental to see what useful information could be mined from the source data. I agree that they are all but useless for OSM's purpose. 95% of the work will be checking for geometric alignment and name from the background image layer in the editor. For example there have been many projects where sharp intersections have been realigned for safety to create right angles. And streets have been renamed for E911 purposes. The one case where I see direct access to converted data is a new residential subdivision - where a new group of roads would be copied from the reference data and connected to existing data. Those would nearly all be residential. So I didn't take the time to go back and remove lane attributes from the raw data. Defaulting to residential was not totally wrong for this county in the same way it was wrong out west. The most likely mismatch would be a new unclassified road into an industrial area - but those will likely be single roads, and thus be as easy to hand trace and assign the correct classification as to copy from the reference layer. Can you link to your discussion with the local community, how/where did that happen? This was mostly verbal discussion with another community member, as well as one of the meetups at https://www.meetup.com/Open-Street-Map-upstate/ , and using some of the ideas presented by Clifford Snow in his "Discover Rural America" presentation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoX2Q2aJXQE=1211s . The link the tasking manager project doesn't work. Corrected. I'm a little unclear about one big question: What are you doing with the existing data in OSM? Existing OSM data seems to have nearly identical locations to this new data. You're just going to update existing OSM data? Do you know how much existing OSM data needs to be updated? All existing data will be reviewed. Most of it will add the surface attribute and lanes if visible from imagery and remove the tiger:reviewed attribute. So nearly everything will be modified. Stepping back to the big picture - although many hours have been spent improving the road network in that county, OSM is the last source I would use when planning a trip to an unfamiliar part of the county. There have been other US projects in which a group would go into a "fast growing region" and review all roads, adding surface and lane attributes to improve navigation. The end goal of this project is similar. When combined with some additional planned work such as address points, OSM will be suitable as the primary reference source when planning a trip through that county. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
