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? >> >> >> >> 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 >> > > > 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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