<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I have spent a very large amount of
time cleaning up TIGER in rural areas of Florida. I agree with
others that the vast majority of untouched TIGER ways in
un-populated rural areas classified as residential are forest
roads for logging trucks at best and pure fantasy at worst, with
tons of barely grass paths all over the place. Many of these roads
are on private lands that you can't (or shouldn't) access anyway.
Spatially accuracy is often horrific. I've reviewed a decent
amount of 2017 TIGER and many areas have not been fixed. The best
secondary source of data I have found are county streets from the
county GIS departments, but those vary widely in quality. At the
very least the county data shows you where all the forest tracks,
farms tracks and imaginary TIGER streets are, because they are not
there in the county data sets. Many times, a residential street
having no name is a strong tip as well that it is not a
residential street.<br>
<br>
Kevin, I hear where you are coming from, but I think your case is
somewhat unique. Most people aren't going to look at a GPS with
OSM data in it, see a bunch of residential roads in a rural
un-populated area and think, OK, that must be unedited TIGER, but
I know there's a few navigable roads in there somewhere, I just
need to find them, record what I found and make some OSM edits. If
they know the area, they are going to think this data is junk. If
they don't know the area and they head into it they will then
figure out pretty quickly the data is junk. I agree with others
that these roads should probably not be in OSM at all - let the
locals add the real roads and tracks. But we are living with the
old TIGER, and there is some potential usefulness that can come
from it. So as others have said, we are willing to leave them
there, downgrade them to track without a grade assigned for now,
maybe make some spatial corrections, delete roads that are
obviously pure fantasy, etc. <br>
<br>
I don't think there should be any requirement to cover a certain
size area when reviewing these areas. We need to be thankful that
someone has taken the time to look at even a small area of rural
areas that don't get much attention normally at all, especially
private lands.<br>
<br>
Brian<br>
<br>
On 2/12/2018 6:02 PM, Kevin Broderick wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPtRu6dR0OnHPOgrLWds5a9J8CMtWrQ8vFsc5+_Y3B=KUqFxhg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">If you can cover an entire area (which I'd define
as a swath between the nearest state highways), I agree that
downgrading to track absent other clues is one reasonable
solution. One of my key points is that anyone who's spent a fair
bit of time trying to use GPS maps (of any origin) in
poorly-mapped areas will quickly recognize an area that is
clearly an unverified TIGER import, which signals both (a) that
the data is clearly questionable and (b) that it might be an
interesting place to explore to find out if the roads do go
through or not. The questionable map data can be very useful,
especially in conjunction with other data sources, in attempting
to piece together a route through an area that lacks fully
maintained roadways. If a track doesn't actually exist, yes,
then it should certainly be deleted, but I've ridden
right-of-ways that were damn near impossible to see with leaf-on
imagery and also found other routes that looked more road-like
via the same imagery impassable, so I definitely wouldn't delete
anything unless you can get there in person and look for
evidence of a roadway, perhaps one that hasn't been maintained
in decades (e.g. Class IV roads in Vermont and Class VI roads in
New Hampshire).
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Downgrading some ways to tracks without doing so to a whole
localized network creates the appearance of a higher level of
data accuracy than actually exists, which IMO is more likely
to bite someone in the ass than having a localized network of
roads that are mislabeled. I know it would make some of the
exploring I've done via on/off-road motorcycle more difficult.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'd also suggest that leaving tiger:reviewed at no is
appropriate if you haven't been able to travel the road/track
in question and determine whether it is really an unclassified
road or a track, so it remains flagged for further review if
someone has the time and proximity to do so.</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:39 PM,
Martijn van Exel <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:m@rtijn.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">m@rtijn.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">I am very happy to see this rekindled
interest in TIGER cleanup!
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Having done a fair amount of backcountry exploring, I
know that there is a wide range of road grades and
aerial imagery alone is not enough to decide how
navigable a roads is for a particular type of vehicle.
Or, for that matter, what its access limitations are. I
do agree with Clifford that leaving them as poorly
aligned 'residential' roads is the worst possible
situation. Yes, worse than deleting the road altogether.
What I usually do is mark the road as track without a
track grade tag. This seems to me to be the most
acceptable generic solution for a remote mapper:
acknowledging that something that could potentially be
navigated by a 4 wheeled vehicle exists, without being
more specific. Local knowledge can then come to the
rescue to upgrade to unclassified if appropriate.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Another note on the MapRoulette side of things: I
would very much appreciate your feedback on the new
MapRoulette version Clifford linked to. Just email me,
join #maproulette on slack, or file an issue at <a
href="https://github.com/maproulette/maproulette3/issues"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://github.com/maproule<wbr>tte/maproulette3/issues</a>. </div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Martijn</div>
</font></span>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="h5">On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:08 PM,
Kevin Kenny <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:kevin.b.kenny+osm@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">kevin.b.kenny+osm@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div dir="ltr"><span>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 12,
2018 at 12:55 PM, Kevin Broderick <span
dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:ktb@kevinbroderick.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">ktb@kevinbroderick.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Please, please, please
don't convert rural roads to tracks
based on imagery alone unless it's
incredibly clear (and that would
exclude anything with forest cover).
<div><br>
</div>
<div>While many of them should
definitely be unclassified, not
residential, downgrading the main
rural routes to tracks doesn't
match local usage nor the
functional topology of the road
network in such places. There are
a lot of USFS and BLM roads around
here that are the only way to
access significant areas, that
commonly see normal passenger-car
traffic and that can be traveled
at reasonable speed in a sedan (or
at 30+ MPH with a little ground
clearance and driving skill),.
Having these differentiated from
true tracks (where even a stock
4x4 is likely going to be
operating at 15 MPH or less) is
incredibly helpful for routing and
visual use of the map, and it's a
lot easier to recognize what I'd
call "areas of questionable data"
when they haven't been
aggressively armchair-mapped.
Also, the smoothness key is really
helpful for tracks and impossible
to map from orthoimagery.</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</span>
<div class="gmail_extra">Yes, yes, yes.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">In the rural areas
that I can travel to readily, TIGER is
downright hallucinatory (and there are few
enough mappers that cleanup has been
agonizingly slow). TIGER has roads in places
where no road is, ever was, or even ever
could be. (I've seen one going up a series
of cliffs totalling about 2000 feet of
ascent!) But even in 'leaves down' images,
it's nearly impossible to see the forest
roads, much less trace them, and there is
definitely a wide variation in quality. Some
of them are well-compacted sand and shale,
that once they've been rolled in the spring,
support driving at 30+ MPH. Others, I
wouldn't bring my Subaru on. (Although I've
been on a few of those in the ancient Ford
Explorrer that the Subaru replaced.) Some
are gated, some, you simply have to decide
for yourself that they're not drivable.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">The 'dirt roads'
range from 'highway=path
abandoned:highway=track
smoothness=impassable' to 'highway=tertiary
surface=compacted smoothness=intermediate',
with no way for an armchair mapper to tell
among them.<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">The old road maps
that they used to give out at gas stations
had, on many of these roads, "inquire
locally for conditions," which is still good
advice. The signage may say, "LIMITED
PURPOSE SEASONAL-USE ROAD: No maintenance
November 1-April 15" - but in practice,
they'll keep it open later in the Autumn
unless the snow comes early, and when they
open it in the spring depends on when the
crews can get it clear - it could be weeks
late if there's been a bad washout or rock
slide. There's absolutely no way to tag and
encode that sort of thing. Inquire locally
for conditions.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<span class="">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Talk-us mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.or<wbr>g/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
<br>
</span></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Kevin Broderick</div>
<div><a href="mailto:ktb@kevinbroderick.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">ktb@kevinbroderick.com</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>