[Talk-us] Discardable TIGER tags

andrzej zaborowski balrogg at gmail.com
Sun Jul 29 23:06:04 BST 2012

On 29 July 2012 23:21, Toby Murray <toby.murray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Ian Dees <ian.dees at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  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.
> Please check your glasses and re-read my message :) I am absolutely
> not proposing an automated edit.
> I have a working JOSM that automatically deletes tiger:upload_uuid.
> The way I implemented it mirrors JOSM's concept of "uninteresting"
> tags. This means that there is a default list of "discardable" tag
> keys. The list can be modified in the advanced preferences. Search for
> "tags.uninteresting" in the preferences if you want to see how it
> works now.
> The question is just what goes in the default list that gets populated
> the first time you fire up a new JOSM version with this feature.
> So far I have:
> tiger:upload_uuid - definite yes
> tiger:source - No opinions
> tiger:separated - mixed feelings. If I could just remove "no" values
> there seems to be unanimous support but that would require doing it
> differently, probably hardcoding it in the source instead of going off
> of a user preference.

Or extending this user preference's syntax, probably not much work.

> tiger:tlid - there seems to be support for removing it although I do
> recall someone opposing it strongly in the past as Anthony mentioned.
> In theory it lets you link back to a specific TIGER object. In
> practice it seems minimally useful with way splitting/merging and a
> fairly high degree of certainty that an automated TIGER 2011+ reimport
> where this could actually be used is probably not going to happen.

I have opposed removing tiger:tlid in the past but this tag is
unlikely to be ever used in practice.  This information could also be
gathered from the history dumps even in case of way splits, they're
easy to detect. (For people interested in dbpedia and linked data it's
probably nice to see a direct external key of another database in a
database but it's apparent that this data is not being maintained)


More information about the Talk-us mailing list