[Talk-us] State Route relations (was: Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns))

Peter Budny peterb at gatech.edu
Sat Oct 16 16:46:11 BST 2010

Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 1:41 AM, Peter Budny <peterb at gatech.edu> wrote:
>> This seems relevant to this thread, although it's not in reply to any
>> particular part of it:
>> As part of a school project, I'm creating a robot that will use the
>> TIGER metadata to automatically attempt to create route relations for
>> State Roads.  (The Interstates and US Highways are mostly finished, it
>> seems, but there are tens of thousands of state routes that haven't been
>> touched.)
> TIGER's state highway data is pretty horrible. For example, in
> Florida, there are many so-called state roads that were given to the
> counties in the 1980s. It seems most have been fixed, but here's an
> example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=30.4537&lon=-85.2118&zoom=14&layers=M

I'm planning on using the tiger:base_name tag, since that seems to be
pretty consistently applied (except that TIGER couldn't decide whether
to use "State Highway" or "State Route" or "SR"... but I can just search
for all known combinations of names).

The area you linked seems to have these tags intact for FL 20, FL 73,
FL 287, and FL 287A.  Did I overlook something?

> You also have major problems in towns, where a route doesn't make a
> turn like it should.

The generated relations will have to be checked by hand, because of
problems exactly like this.  However, 80-90% of the tedious work will be
done, and (I hope) users will be able to walk the relation end-to-end
and fix up the problem spots pretty easily.

Checking all 6000+ of Kentucky's state routes by hand seems easier than
having to actually *find* all 6000 of them by staring at the map.
Peter Budny  \
Georgia Tech  \
CS PhD student \

More information about the Talk-us mailing list