[Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Peter Dobratz]

JOSM does automatically discard some TIGER:* tags.  There's a list of keys
in the tags.discardable JOSM preference item.  Among the list of tags that
JOSM automatically deletes are:
tiger:source
tiger:separated
tiger:tlid
tiger:upload_uuid

These tags are hidden from the editor so you don't normally see them.  They
are automatically removed from any objects that you modify.  You may notice
them if you are looking at the history of an object in JOSM.

That being said, I delete the other tiger:* from roads as I am editing
them.  Usually, I am verifying addr:* tags of things along the road and
checking that the addr:street matches the name of the road.  I also often
remove the name_1, name_2, etc tags that came from the TIGER import.  Where
appropriate, I retain them in alt_name or old_name.

Peter

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Steve Friedl <steve at unixwiz.net> wrote:

> Ø  Unless something changed, I think both Potlatch and JOSM will remove
> the ‘junk’ tags from TIGER if you delete the reviewed=no
>
>
>
> I’ve deleted thousands of tiger:reviewed tags (after proper review) and
> have never seen JOSM take anything else along for the ride.  JOSM **does**
> remove the yellow glow around ways once you remove tiger:reviewed, but
> that’s all I’ve seen.
>
>
>
> I have very much wanted to dump the tags that have no obvious use for OSM,
> but had no idea if somebody else, somewhere, might use them: probably not,
> but it didn’t feel like it was my call to make. I’d love for there to be a
> consensus on this.
>
>
>
> So the only things I’ve removed are tiger:reviewed, plus spurious
> additional tags that duplicate existing ones (tiger:zip_left_1 when it’s
> the same as tiger:zip_left).
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> *From:* Russell Deffner [mailto:russdeffner at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 03, 2016 8:45 AM
> *To:* 'Adam Franco' <adamfranco at gmail.com>; talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
>
>
>
> Oops, sorry Adam, replied directly to you versus the list; here’s the
> message:
>
>
>
> My thoughts:
>
>
>
> Unless something changed, I think both Potlatch and JOSM will remove the
> ‘junk’ tags from TIGER if you delete the reviewed=no. Maybe this is not the
> case with iD?
>
>
>
> As far as classification; please note that it is not about whether the
> road is rural or not; it’s the function – there have been people who
> started changing all ‘dirt roads’ to track around me in rural Colorado –
> this is NOT correct. Most of the ‘dirt roads’ around here are 100%
> verifiably “residential”. So please don’t encourage mass changing of
> classification based on anything but function of the roadway.
>
>
>
> =Russ
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Franco [mailto:adamfranco at gmail.com <adamfranco at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 03, 2016 9:28 AM
> *To:* talk-us at openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
>
>
>
> Just some more feedback on the idea of a TIGER rural-residential challenge
> based on cleanup I've done throughout much of Vermont:
>
>    - Most of the roads in rural areas should have their highway= changed
>    to something other than residential. (well known issue).
>    - Surface tags would be GREAT! I've added surface tags to most roads
>    in Vermont, but have not quite gotten to all of them yet.
>    - At least here in Vermont, "private road" means that the ownership
>    and maintenance of the road is the responsibility of the resident[s], not
>    that "access=private". We have many private roads due to low densities of
>    residences and Towns generally won't take over ownership/maintenance unless
>    there are at least 3 residences and the proposal passes a public vote. The
>    TIGER import mistakenly tagged many private-roads as "access=private". It
>    would be great to remove this tag if it hasn't been added by a person.
>
> If there is any way to help out with this effort I'd love to lend a hand.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:18 AM, James Umbanhowar <jumbanho at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Funny, I just looked at the MapRoulette beta and noticed that you were
> already doing this.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 10:00 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote:
> > Minor suggestion for this MapRoulette challenge:  Could you structure
> > it by state (or other geographic region, county?) and do each region
> > sequentially.  I, personally, think it would be neat to see areas get
> > "done" as far as Tiger clean up.
> >
> > Either way, thanks for these.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 10:21 +0200, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> > >
> > > Well said. I have space in my basement also.
> > >
> > > I am eager to launch a MapRoulette challenge for untouched rural
> > > ‘residential’ roads - a challenge which will probably take some
> > > time
> > > to complete. If someone can furnish a good Overpass query for this,
> > > please go ahead and do it.
> > >
> > > Martijn
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Jun 3, 2016, at 8:55 AM, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.n
> <richard at systemed.n%0b>> > > et
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > There is a special corner of hell/Steve's basement for people who
> > > > remove
> > > > tiger:reviewed=no on rural unpaved roads without changing the
> > > > highway tag or
> > > > adding a surface tag.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Talk-us mailing list
> > > Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20160603/a4f90d38/attachment-0001.html>