[Talk-us-massachusetts] automated edits and massgis tags

Sun Dec 31 22:03:32 UTC 2017

I have no favorite massgis tags. I imagine they will still appear in the
"history" of the object.
The removal should definitely include attribution and source on highway
nodes.

Alan

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Nicholas Davidowicz <
nicholasdavidowicz at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> I agree with Jason's lists. DEP site numbers are posted physically so
> those should definitely stay (in some form or another). Ref number makes
> sense in case anyone wants to trace back for some reason. The rest has
> little or no value to keep in OSM.
>
> Nick
>
> On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Jason Remillard <
> remillard.jason at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> If Mateusz has good scripts written and debugged to remove tags in
>> bulk and is willing to run the automated edit, I would be happy to
>> support him.
>>
>> Removing the tags listed in Mateusz email would improve OSM.
>>
>> massgis:ARTICLE97
>> massgis:ASSESS_ACR
>> massgis:ASSESS_LOT
>> massgis:ASSESS_MAP
>> massgis:ATT_DATE
>> massgis:EOEAINVOLV
>> massgis:FEESYM
>> massgis:FY_FUNDING
>> massgis:LEV_PROT
>> massgis:MANAGR_ABR
>> massgis:MANAGR_TYP
>> massgis:OS_DEED_BO
>> massgis:OS_DEED_PA
>> massgis:OWNER_ABRV
>> massgis:PRIM_PURP
>> massgis:SOURCE_MAP
>> massgis:SOURCE_TYP
>> massgis:BASE_MAP
>> massgis:DCAM_ID
>> massgis:OS_ID
>> massgis:POLY_ID
>> massgis:TOWN_ID
>> massgis:DEED_ACRES
>>
>> In fact, I would support removing virtually all of the massgis: tags.
>>
>> My keep list
>>
>> massgis:WETCODE 38840
>> massgis:SITE_NAME 21773
>> massgis:ref 1286
>> massgis:school_id 878
>>
>> Remove
>>
>> attribution="Office of Geographic and Environmental Information (MassGIS)"
>> source=massgis_import_*
>>
>> massgis:way_id 201769
>> massgis:IT_VALDESC 39854
>> massgis:SOURCE 39819
>> massgis:PALIS_ID 38898
>> massgis:OBJECTID 38879
>> massgis:POLY_CODE 38836
>> massgis:IT_VALC 38831
>> massgis:SOURCE_SCA 38827
>> massgis:FEE_OWNER 26801
>> massgis:PUB_ACCESS 26783
>> massgis:TOWN_ID 26767
>> massgis:PRIM_PURP 26766
>> massgis:OWNER_TYPE 26765
>> massgis:FEESYM 26762
>> massgis:ARTICLE97 26749
>> massgis:DCAM_ID 26748
>> massgis:EOEAINVOLV 26744
>> massgis:FY_FUNDING 26745
>> massgis:ATT_DATE 26743
>> massgis:LEV_PROT 26740
>> massgis:DEED_ACRES 26743
>> massgis:OS_DEED_BO 26713
>> massgis:OS_DEED_PA 26709
>> massgis:ASSESS_ACR 26674
>> massgis:POLY_ID 26654
>> massgis:OS_ID 26650
>> massgis:SITE_NAME 21773
>> massgis:OWNER_ABRV 21154
>> massgis:SOURCE_MAP 18246
>> massgis:ASSESS_MAP 17628
>> massgis:ASSESS_LOT 16453
>> massgis:BASE_MAP 10151
>> massgis:MANAGER 9965
>> massgis:MANAGR_TYP 9939
>> massgis:MANAGR_ABR 9705
>> massgis:COMMENTS 9191
>> massgis:PROJ_ID1 7480
>> massgis:SOURCE_TYP 6932
>> massgis:SOURCE_ACC 6339
>> massgis:CAL_DATE_R 6226
>> massgis:OLI_1_INT 4582
>> massgis:INTSYM 4572
>> massgis:OLI_1_ORG 4572
>> massgis:OLI_1_TYPE 4562
>> massgis:OLI_1_ABRV 4503
>> massgis:cat 4292
>> massgis:ASSESS_BLK 3087
>> massgis:GRANTTYPE1 1862
>> massgis:GRANTPROG1 1860
>> massgis:ALT_SITE_N 1438
>> massgis:ASSESS_SUB 820
>> massgis:PROJ_ID2 625
>> massgis:LOC_ID 531
>> massgis:geom_id 323
>> massgis:OLI_2_TYPE 458
>> massgis:OLI_2_ORG 454
>> massgis:OLI_2_INT 437
>> massgis:OLI_2_ABRV 433
>> massgis:BOND_ACCT 414
>> massgis:OldMapNo 209
>> massgis:UseCode 209
>> massgis:StNum 209
>> massgis:LastEdit 209
>> massgis:UseType 208
>> massgis:Sequence 206
>> massgis:PicLink 204
>> massgis:HistLink 204
>> massgis:TypeCode 189
>> massgis:GRANTPROG2 195
>> massgis:GRANTTYPE2 194
>> massgis:GridNum 192
>> massgis:NameOffc 186
>> massgis:BanCod 181
>> massgis:Address 168
>> massgis:FAACS 168
>> massgis:StName 167
>> massgis:StType 166
>> massgis:id 102
>> massgis:NameFamil 119
>> massgis:PROJ_ID3 70
>> massgis:Name 54
>> massgis:TOTAL 50
>> massgis:TIME_ 50
>> massgis:DAY_ 50
>> massgis:OBJECTID_2 50
>> massgis:Shape_Le_1 50
>> massgis:HNC 50
>> massgis:F_S_D 50
>> massgis:S_V 50
>> massgis:RES 50
>> massgis:OBJECTID_1 50
>> massgis:UNLD 50
>> massgis:MC 50
>> massgis:F_S 50
>> massgis:OFC 50
>> massgis:PER 50
>> massgis:OID_ 50
>> massgis:Shape_Area 50
>> massgis:Shape_Leng 50
>> massgis:VIS 50
>> massgis:StNumsfx 53
>> massgis:Type 48
>> massgis:Surface 48
>> massgis:NAME_1 48
>> massgis:OLI_3_INT 37
>> massgis:OLI_3_ABRV 35
>> massgis:OLI_3_ORG 35
>> massgis:OLI_3_TYPE 35
>> massgis:DisplayNam 32
>> massgis:StPrfx 24
>> massgis:town_id 0
>> massgis:fourcolor 0
>> massgis:landuse 17
>> massgis:OldName 10
>> massgis:ADA_ACCESS 5
>> massgis:BIKING 5
>> massgis:COUNTY 5
>> massgis:TO_ 5
>> massgis:ACCT_ID 5
>> massgis:MGMT 5
>> massgis:MGMT_ZIP 5
>> massgis:STATUS 5
>> massgis:NAME01 5
>> massgis:SHAPE_Leng 5
>> massgis:INTERPRETI 5
>> massgis:EQUESTRIAN 5
>> massgis:METHOD 5
>> massgis:MGMT_WEBSI 5
>> massgis:ATV 5
>> massgis:RORT 5
>> massgis:HIKING 5
>> massgis:RAILINE 5
>> massgis:SURFACE 5
>> massgis:UPDATE_ 5
>> massgis:MGMT_ADDR 5
>> massgis:MGMT_CITY 5
>> massgis:CROSS_COUN 5
>> massgis:FOUR_WHEEL 5
>> massgis:MGMT_CON_1 5
>> massgis:MGMT_CON_2 5
>> massgis:MGMT_STATE 5
>> massgis:OFF_ROAD_M 5
>> massgis:SNOWMOBILE 5
>> massgis:FROM_ 5
>> massgis:SHAPE_AREA 4
>> massgis:MAP_ID 4
>> massgis:ACRES 4
>> massgis:PWSID 3
>> massgis:SHAPE_LEN 4
>> massgis:SITE_ADDR 4
>> massgis:NAME 4
>> massgis:UNIT_TYPE 0
>> massgis:UNIT_NAME 0
>> massgis:tex 2
>> massgis:GIS_NOTES 0
>> massgis:UNIT_CODE 0
>> massgis:DATE_EDIT 0
>> massgis:PERIMETER 0
>> massgis:NAME1 0
>> massgis:URL 0
>> massgis:STATE 0
>> massgis:AGBUR 0
>> massgis:STATE_FIPS 0
>> massgis:FEATURE1 0
>> massgis:schoolid 1
>> massgis:DESCRIZION 1
>> massgis:FEDLANP020 0
>>
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Recently on talk-us, someone asked about our beloved massgis:* tags:
>> >
>> >   https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2017-Decembe
>> r/079952.html
>> >
>> > He's not local (Europe), and I replied and also talked to him off list.
>> > I pointed out that this is a MA thing only, and cautioned than any
>> > automated edit would need review by this list.  He's done this sort of
>> > edit in Poland, to clean things up.  I said I'd ask.
>> >
>> > So, I wonder how people feel about dropping a bunch of massgis:* tags?
>> > I think they are there because
>> >
>> >   everything was translated
>> >
>> >   we had some notion of foreign keys for later matching, but it seems
>> >   now people think you need full-blown conflation/matching anyway
>> >
>> > I think eventually we'll want to look at the layers we have imported and
>> > do some maintenance.   But I don't think this really interferes with
>> > this.  On the other hand I could see the point that churn is bad and
>> > these tags don't really hurt.
>> >
>> > So, I would like to hear opinions on two questions:
>> >
>> >   If it were done right, do you think it would be good to drop massgis:*
>> >   tags, or some defined subset of them?
>> >
>> >   Do you think you'd like to do it yourself?  Do you think it's ok for
>> >   one of us locals to do it?  Do you think it's ok for a longstanding
>> >   OSM contributor from .EU to do it?
>> >
>> >   anything else?
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Talk-us-massachusetts mailing list
>> > Talk-us-massachusetts at openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us-massachusetts mailing list
>> Talk-us-massachusetts at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us-massachusetts mailing list
> Talk-us-massachusetts at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20171231/84a65e8c/attachment-0001.html>