[Talk-us] Drop the tiger:reviewed tag from roads

[Jack Burke]

I kinda object to any type of mechanical removal of this tag, mainly
because I do still use it.  I've modified JOSM's settings to show the
yellow highlight, and I periodically go on a TIGER editing spree,
especially in the county I live in.  It has been very valuable in finding
and fixing misnamed roads and other errors.

One of my main objections to a mechanical removal is that there are
numerous rural-area roads where the only edit I've done is to add the
county road number as a ref tag (often I will document these as a voice
note in OsmAnd as I drive past them on a higher-priority road).  I won't
necessarily have verified the road name, surface, or any other attributes
at the time.

--jack


On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Martijn van Exel <m at rtijn.org> wrote:

> I was thinking about this some more. I do still actually use the visual
> cue (yellow) in JOSM to see which roads I want to double-check when editing
> in an area. I don't know if this is still enabled in JOSM by default but
> it's available as one of the default paint styles.
> --
>   Martijn van Exel
>   m at rtijn.org
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2018, at 10:59, Steve Friedl wrote:
> > > I believe folks still use it in places to indicate that no-one has
> reviewed it on the ground, but I cannot find the thread(s) where that was
> brought up.
> >
> > I’m exactly one of those users: once I’ve confirmed or fixed the object,
> > I delete the tag, so this is still useful for me as a kind of to-do
> > list.
> >
> > I also delete tiger:reviewed=yes tags when otherwise editing an object.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> > From: Martijn van Exel [mailto:m at rtijn.org]
> > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 9:56 AM
> > To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Drop the tiger:reviewed tag from roads
> >
> > I believe folks still use it in places to indicate that no-one has
> > reviewed it on the ground, but I cannot find the thread(s) where that
> > was brought up.
> >
> > I think a mechanical removal may be a bit overzealous, even though I
> > personally wouldn't shed a tear. As long as there is at least one tag
> > left that would indicate TIGER as the original source, so we can
> > continue to detect 'unmodified TIGER' roads.
> > --
> >   Martijn van Exel
> >   mailto:m at rtijn.org
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 11, 2018, at 10:25, Clifford Snow wrote:
> > The tag, tiger:reviewed that is left over from the 2006/7 import of
> > TIGER roads has lost any meaning. For example, look at 196th Avenue
> > Southwest [1] in Thurston County WA. It's on version 6 yet still has
> > tiger:reviewed=no. Note I picked this street at random from a overpass
> > query [2]. I see this tag all the time. It's time to get rid of it. Not
> > through a mechanical edit, but by editors making changes to roads.
> >
> > I'm proposing to open a ticket for JOSM to add this tag to the list of
> > discarded tags. I'd like to hear if there are any objects or think this
> > is a good idea.
> >
> > I did learn from Toby Murray this morning that you can add
> > tiger:reviewed to the list of discarded tags in JOSM by going to
> > preferences->Advanced Preferences and adding tiger:reviewed to
> > tags.discardable. Then just reload JOSM for the changed to be active.
> >
> > [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/173554611
> > [2] http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/yJh
> >
> > Clifford
> >
> > --
> > @osm_seattle
> > http://osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> > OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > mailto: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/20180511/0392eedf/attachment.html>