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

Fri Jun 3 21:13:58 UTC 2016

Can someone review for me the 'rural residential' problem?

I haven't done a lot of editing away of TIGER tags, although I've
wanted to - a lot of the areas where I've been mapping have had
virtually no TIGER review whatsoever and the garish overlays in JOSM
are annoying. Some of the areas I work on are densely wooded, and the
roads aren't always traceable on aerial photos, so MapRoulette won't
help, but I do gather GPS tracks and check the alignment. A lot of the
TIGER roads are simply hallucinations - roads in places where no road
could exist or ever have existed. The best I ever found went right up
the fall line of a 2000 foot cliff. I think whoever digitized for
TIGER might have had a particular obsolete [1903] USGS topo that
showed a dashed line for a climbing route that once existed in there.
I delete hallucinatory highways..

I haven't worried much about the 'highway=' classification, except
that I downgrade to 'track' if it looks as if I'd want a high-profile
vehicle in anything but the best weather, or to 'path' if you're not
allowed to drive on it.

I suppose that I'm breaking some rule that will screw up someone's
routing?  If so, I'm sorry. Chalk it up to ignorance, and well, I
haven't done very many of these. (I mostly edit other things than
TIGER cleanup.) What should I be looking for with 'residential', and
what is the alternative tagging if I don't find it?

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Peter Dobratz <peter at dobratz.us> wrote:
> 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]
>> 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
>> > > > 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>