[Talk-us] Discardable TIGER tags

Ian Dees ian.dees at gmail.com
Sun Jul 29 21:25:02 BST 2012


On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Toby Murray <toby.murray at gmail.com> wrote:

> Some people may not even be aware of this but JOSM silently discards
> the created_by tag if it exists on any object you change and upload to
> the API. This tag was deemed unnecessary and counterproductive a long
> time ago and this is just a way of cleaning it out of the database as
> people edit. Not sure if Potlatch does anything like this.
>
> What do you think about adding a couple of TIGER tags to be silently
> dropped? As more attributes get added to things in OSM the tag list
> can get kind of big and annoying to look through, especially when some
> of them are of no real value. Specifically, I try to always do a
> "modified" search in JOSM before I upload and remove the
> tiger:separated and tiger:upload_uuid tags from things I have touched.
>
> I believe the tiger:separated tag was set on all residential or higher
> roads. 98.6% of the values are "no" and most of them are on minor
> streets where it is not really an interesting value. On the remaining
> roads it seems, in my experience, to be wrong a majority of the time
> anyway. So I see no value in this tag.
>
> I believe Dave Hansen said the UUID tag was useful during the TIGER
> import process to verify things and fix problems but I see no value in
> it now. It is such a large value that it takes up about 1 GB of space
> in the (uncompressed XML) planet file according to my calculations.
>
> As stated above, this would only delete the tags on objects that you
> have already modified in some way, not on everything you download.
>
> Are there any other tags that people feel should be automatically
> discarded? tiger:tlid and tiger:county seem mildly useful. What about
> tiger:cfcc and tiger:source? I don't currently remove those from my
> changesets but don't really see too much use for them either. Not
> really sure about the zip code tags. They seem like they could be
> useful but I am not aware of anything that actually uses them. If
> there is agreement, I will submit a patch to the JOSM devs and
> reference this thread.


 While we're incrementing every single version number of TIGER data, we
should think about expanding the road names, too. Using the prefix and
suffix data already on the majority of the ways makes this pretty
fool-proof, so where it makes sense I think we should do that, too.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20120729/64be817b/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list