Re: Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
31 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)

Community Working Group

Well, the road your referring to sounds like a track, if it has no other significant use than a beautiful and adventurous way to travel between the two towns.  However, the road I live on is well maintained (graded, plowed in winter, etc. – FYI I drive a Nissan Maxima/low clearance 2WD) but basically has only one function – to get to the residences along it – which fits residential much more than track.  I think this is a case where there is not a one size fits all for road classification, in my opinion my local knowledge suggests there is a big difference between the residential dirt road I live on and the (typically 4X4) tracks that are in the area.

 

From: Paul Johnson [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 1:29 PM
To: Russell Deffner
Cc: Mike N; OpenStreetMap talk-us list
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Abandoned railway

 

What about track grade?  Seems like we've got this whole "unpaved" situation solved with track.  I mean, you can get from Telluride to Lake City in ~35 miles, but I wouldn't consider that a viable option to anybody who isn't adventurous.

 

 

On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Russell Deffner <[hidden email]> wrote:

One good reason to tag a dirt road different than a track is it’s utility.  I happen to live on a dirt road in rural Colorado with about a thousand neighbors, there are 2 paved roads in our neighborhood, however the remaining 3 or 4 dozen are properly tagged residential, i.e. residential dirt roads.  There are real tracks around here as well and if all dirt roads were converted to track then the map would be seriously degraded in usefulness.

 

Russell Deffner

 

From: Paul Johnson [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 1:00 PM
To: Mike N
Cc: OpenStreetMap talk-us list


Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Abandoned railway

 

 

On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Mike N <[hidden email]> wrote:

 Landing on the high plains desert in the west does not make a good case that OSM in the US is broken.  Desert imagery cues do not match those of conventional climates.   Those roads likely do exist, but are barely visible in contrast to the surroundings.  We city-folk would classify them as tracks, but a desert prospector or park ranger would consider them secondary.


NO!  We would still classify them as tracks!  Because there's no good reason to classify them as more major, given consistency.  We're trying to not break the routers, after all.  Yes, I realize that the vast majority of county roads are not paved in my region.  But to classify them as more major is a sickening choice, and would actually make OSM much worse than Yahoo Maps, given the situation that actually killed a Yahoo founder.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kim

 

Just because it's a county road doesn't stop it from being a track.  It might be a grade1 track, but that's still a track.  Even on the most major tracks, even if they're capable of letting you hit the default speed limit in most counties (45 mph), I'd still consider them a track.  Mostly because if it's not paved at all, there's a good chance that 1) it floods regularly, 2) it's not always the grade reported in OSM and therefore not always possible in all vehicles, and 3) completely irresponsible to represent them as something people unfamiliar are going to want to take.  My comfort level in taking a Chevy Malibu over dozens of miles of county track, even if it's the shortest or fastest way, is going to be completely different from someone unfamiliar with the territory, and unfamiliar with the map's foibles in the region.

 

At least in North America, I'm willing to go so far as to say as tagging any unpaved road as anything higher than track is Considered Harmful.

 


_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)

Paul Johnson-3

On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Russell Deffner <[hidden email]> wrote:
Well, the road your referring to sounds like a track, if it has no other significant use than a beautiful and adventurous way to travel between the two towns.  However, the road I live on is well maintained (graded, plowed in winter, etc. – FYI I drive a Nissan Maxima/low clearance 2WD) but basically has only one function – to get to the residences along it – which fits residential much more than track.  I think this is a case where there is not a one size fits all for road classification, in my opinion my local knowledge suggests there is a big difference between the residential dirt road I live on and the (typically 4X4) tracks that are in the area.

If it's well maintained year-round, I'd be willing to call that a highway=unclassified at best.  I tend to reserve higher classifications for paved roads that have centerlines, at a dead minimum.  Paved with centerlines and fog lines, even if they don't have a paved shoulder, is definitely tertiary at a minimum (though I would consider BC 17 between Port Renfrew and Victoria, BC as secondary due to it's nature as a provincial highway, despite at least a dozen one lane bridges, due to the prevailing nature of the highway, much the same way I consider US 412 between the Cimarron Turnpike and downtown Tulsa a motorway, even though there's one at-grade intersection on a spit just east of Keystone Lake on that highway).

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)

Paul Johnson-3
Likewise, I consider WA-500 a trunk west of WA-503 to it's terminus at I-5, even though it's largely grade separated, due to it's very short length (not even all the way across Vancouver, WA) and multiple at-grade intersections, including it's intersection with WA-503, and low speed (45 MPH).


On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Russell Deffner <[hidden email]> wrote:
Well, the road your referring to sounds like a track, if it has no other significant use than a beautiful and adventurous way to travel between the two towns.  However, the road I live on is well maintained (graded, plowed in winter, etc. – FYI I drive a Nissan Maxima/low clearance 2WD) but basically has only one function – to get to the residences along it – which fits residential much more than track.  I think this is a case where there is not a one size fits all for road classification, in my opinion my local knowledge suggests there is a big difference between the residential dirt road I live on and the (typically 4X4) tracks that are in the area.

If it's well maintained year-round, I'd be willing to call that a highway=unclassified at best.  I tend to reserve higher classifications for paved roads that have centerlines, at a dead minimum.  Paved with centerlines and fog lines, even if they don't have a paved shoulder, is definitely tertiary at a minimum (though I would consider BC 17 between Port Renfrew and Victoria, BC as secondary due to it's nature as a provincial highway, despite at least a dozen one lane bridges, due to the prevailing nature of the highway, much the same way I consider US 412 between the Cimarron Turnpike and downtown Tulsa a motorway, even though there's one at-grade intersection on a spit just east of Keystone Lake on that highway).


_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)

Community Working Group

Um, you lost me Paul J

 

Back to the original point that drew me into the conversation – I do not agree with switching every road that has surface=dirt to highway=track.  Using highway=track with tracktype=* would not fully describe the significance of roads around here because there are some ‘residential’ roads – those being roads that only have the function of reaching residences – that get washed out, are very steep, etc. and would probably earn a higher grade than some of the 4WD/OHV ‘tracks’ in the National Forest around here – those being roads only used for recreation or timber harvesting, but sometimes are very smooth and easy to travel.

 

In conclusion, I don’t think any one feature (surface, smoothness, tracktype, lanes, speed, etc.) can be used to define or redefine the importance/significance of a road and sometimes only local knowledge can tell you that.

 

Happy Mapping!

 

From: Paul Johnson [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 2:12 PM
To: Russell Deffner
Cc: Mike N; OpenStreetMap talk-us list
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)

 

Likewise, I consider WA-500 a trunk west of WA-503 to it's terminus at I-5, even though it's largely grade separated, due to it's very short length (not even all the way across Vancouver, WA) and multiple at-grade intersections, including it's intersection with WA-503, and low speed (45 MPH).

 

On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Russell Deffner <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well, the road your referring to sounds like a track, if it has no other significant use than a beautiful and adventurous way to travel between the two towns.  However, the road I live on is well maintained (graded, plowed in winter, etc. – FYI I drive a Nissan Maxima/low clearance 2WD) but basically has only one function – to get to the residences along it – which fits residential much more than track.  I think this is a case where there is not a one size fits all for road classification, in my opinion my local knowledge suggests there is a big difference between the residential dirt road I live on and the (typically 4X4) tracks that are in the area.

 

If it's well maintained year-round, I'd be willing to call that a highway=unclassified at best.  I tend to reserve higher classifications for paved roads that have centerlines, at a dead minimum.  Paved with centerlines and fog lines, even if they don't have a paved shoulder, is definitely tertiary at a minimum (though I would consider BC 17 between Port Renfrew and Victoria, BC as secondary due to it's nature as a provincial highway, despite at least a dozen one lane bridges, due to the prevailing nature of the highway, much the same way I consider US 412 between the Cimarron Turnpike and downtown Tulsa a motorway, even though there's one at-grade intersection on a spit just east of Keystone Lake on that highway).

 


_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)

Tod Fitch
+1 to this. While mapping areas near my folks where I grew up there are lots of dirt roads and there are lots of tracks and they are different.

In that area, in my opinion, a dirt road will have regular maintenance sufficient for passage by a family car and, generally but not always, be wide enough for two vehicles to pass each other in all places. A track will typically be unmaintained and only be wide enough for one vehicle (though on a satellite view it could be tough to tell width as often they appear wider when people extend the width to get around wash outs or rough spots).

Another item that helps tell is if there is an official name assigned to the way but, since sign posting is often rare in those locations it could be difficult to tell that in the field.

If I am trying to clean up the Tiger desert in those area by arm chair mapping, I go by width. Sometimes the transition from unclassified, unpaved to track, unpaved is difficult to tell from Bing though.

On Aug 30, 2014, at 1:52 PM, Russell Deffner wrote:

Um, you lost me Paul J
 
Back to the original point that drew me into the conversation – I do not agree with switching every road that has surface=dirt to highway=track.  Using highway=track with tracktype=* would not fully describe the significance of roads around here because there are some ‘residential’ roads – those being roads that only have the function of reaching residences – that get washed out, are very steep, etc. and would probably earn a higher grade than some of the 4WD/OHV ‘tracks’ in the National Forest around here – those being roads only used for recreation or timber harvesting, but sometimes are very smooth and easy to travel.
 
In conclusion, I don’t think any one feature (surface, smoothness, tracktype, lanes, speed, etc.) can be used to define or redefine the importance/significance of a road and sometimes only local knowledge can tell you that.
 
Happy Mapping!



_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)

Richard Welty-2
On 8/31/14 1:03 PM, Tod Fitch wrote:
+1 to this. While mapping areas near my folks where I grew up there are lots of dirt roads and there are lots of tracks and they are different.

In that area, in my opinion, a dirt road will have regular maintenance sufficient for passage by a family car and, generally but not always, be wide enough for two vehicles to pass each other in all places. A track will typically be unmaintained and only be wide enough for one vehicle (though on a satellite view it could be tough to tell width as often they appear wider when people extend the width to get around wash outs or rough spots).

agreed. i have spent quite a lot of time in Iowa farming territory
where the road grid consists mostly of high quality, well maintained
gravel roads that are in regular, heavy use by farm equipment. i
generally give these highway=unclassified, surface=gravel.

richard
-- 
[hidden email]
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

signature.asc (899 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)

Richard Fairhurst
Richard Welty wrote:
> agreed. i have spent quite a lot of time in Iowa farming
> territory where the road grid consists mostly of high
> quality, well maintained gravel roads that are in regular,
> heavy use by farm equipment. i generally give these
> highway=unclassified, surface=gravel.

Great to see this issue getting some airtime.

Obviously it's entirely your choice nationally as to what tags you use, as long as they don't diverge too wildly from the rest of the world. Having a distinction between highway=track and highway=unclassified;surface=gravel is certainly one possibility. It doesn't really matter as long as there's agreement and a will to fix it.

I think the other half of the equation, however, is actually getting this fixed across the country. At present it appears to be just a small number of mappers doing it in their areas; the US is a big place, and at the current rate it's not going to be fixed any time soon. Drive-by tools like MapRoulette are generally a good solution for systemic data quality problems, but in this case I think the problem's too big for that.

What would help here? A Tasking Manager instance with defined areas (say, 10km x 10km, or counties, or...)? Anything else?

cheers
Richard

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)

Mike N.
On 9/1/2014 7:53 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> I think the other half of the equation, however, is actually getting this
> fixed across the country. At present it appears to be just a small number of
> mappers doing it in their areas;

   To be honest, I don't really get the problem with excessive
'residential', or what I'd do to fix it.   If I had to study the roads
where I live, a few would be upgraded to tertiary or changed to
unclassified, and all unnamed residential would be changed to driveway,
but the end result would have very few changes (with the exception of
unnamed residential - which could be done with a bot).


_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)

Wolfgang Zenker
Hi,

* Mike N <[hidden email]> [140901 14:45]:
> On 9/1/2014 7:53 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> I think the other half of the equation, however, is actually getting this
>> fixed across the country. At present it appears to be just a small number of
>> mappers doing it in their areas;

>    To be honest, I don't really get the problem with excessive
> 'residential', or what I'd do to fix it.   If I had to study the roads
> where I live, a few would be upgraded to tertiary or changed to
> unclassified, and all unnamed residential would be changed to driveway,
> but the end result would have very few changes (with the exception of
> unnamed residential - which could be done with a bot).

I guess you haven't done much in the rural parts of the US yet. Have a
look at Lincoln County MT: You will find A LOT of tracks. Most of these
had been tagged as residential highway in the TIGER import (with horrible
distorted geometry of course), and no way could this have been fixed with
a bot. Took me about two years to get this county into the current state.

Wolfgang
(your friendly German Guest Mapper :-)

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)

Mike N.
On 9/1/2014 9:59 AM, Wolfgang Zenker wrote:
> I guess you haven't done much in the rural parts of the US yet. Have a
> look at Lincoln County MT: You will find A LOT of tracks. Most of these
> had been tagged as residential highway in the TIGER import (with horrible
> distorted geometry of course), and no way could this have been fixed with
> a bot. Took me about two years to get this county into the current state.

   I agree that rural areas with tracks need to be manually corrected,
but that's more of an issue in some areas than others.   I'm wondering
about the typical small town or suburb with reasonable geometry, this
village for example:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/34.9673/-82.4367

   Perhaps another tertiary or 2, but everything else would remain
residential except for the driveways.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by Mike N.
Mike N. wrote:
> To be honest, I don't really get the problem with excessive
> 'residential', or what I'd do to fix it.   If I had to study the
> roads where I live, a few would be upgraded to tertiary or
> changed to unclassified, and all unnamed residential would
> be changed to driveway, but the end result would have
> very few changes

Wolfgang's right in that this is a rural problem, not a town problem. In towns, 'highway=residential' was a good guess for the TIGER import script to make. It just wasn't a good guess in rural areas.

How's this a problem? Well, let's say that I want to go for a bike ride (which I do) but that I live in Oxford, Mississippi, rather than just outside Oxford, England. I want to stay away from the main roads, because I don't want to be run down. So, using OSM, I find this nice-looking area nearby with a lot of roads through it.

Except I don't know if they're at all cyclable, or if I need to take the bike with knobbly tyres, or even if they exist at all. OSM in the US just isn't reliable to that level, whereas it is in Western Europe, and the Australians are also working on the issue. But in the US, I couldn't use OSM for planning a route by hand, let alone with a router, which would merrily send me down the shortest highway=residential with no knowledge of whether it's suitable or not.

Paul's link to the James Kim story is an example of when this absence of knowledge (not via OSM, fortunately) went tragically wrong. I'm not pretending that this is a "people might die" situation right now, but it's something that needs to be fixed before OSM can be said to be 'navigation-ready' for consumers outside cities, large towns and interstate highways. Happily, it's a lot easier and quicker to fix than the other big gotcha (addressing) and I really hope we can get it fixed soon.

cheers
Richard

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)

Mike N.
On 9/1/2014 11:27 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Except I don't know if they're at all cyclable, or if I need to take the
> bike with knobbly tyres, or even if they exist at all. OSM in the US just
> isn't reliable to that level, whereas it is in Western Europe, and the
> Australians are also working on the issue. But in the US, I couldn't use OSM
> for planning a route by hand, let alone with a router, which would merrily
> send me down the shortest highway=residential with no knowledge of whether
> it's suitable or not.

   For the rural case and accurate route planning, it will take ground
truthing to get accurate bike / foot routing - it's probably not
something that could be tasked to MapRoulette/etc.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)

OSM Volunteer stevea
In reply to this post by Richard Fairhurst
>What would help here? A Tasking Manager instance with defined areas (say,
>10km x 10km, or counties, or...)? Anything else?

I like the idea of a TM to help here (like a cake map or somesuch),
but I'd rather we slice things up by county rather than (random, 10km
x 10km) grids.  Reason #1 is that there is a natural hierarchy, as
counties can be aggregated into states.  Reason #2 is that this will
naturally align to sharpening up USA county boundaries (which are
spotty in many places now).  Reason #3 is that much publicly
accessible GIS data is maintained and available at the county level,
or state level where counties are a "natural" way of breaking up the
data.

As I worked with another OSM volunteer on bringing in some landuse
data in Monterey County, California, I have done similar with what
were TIGER "residential" roads, but were really tracks in that
largely rural, agricultural county.  The landuse import took the two
of us around six or eight weeks of some careful work, but converting
TIGER residential to track (where true) took the better part of eight
MONTHS, the county being something like 2/3 the size of the state of
Connecticut.  It still isn't done, as the southeastern portion of the
county is very sparsely populated, has difficult access, and
comparisons of what Bing and TIGER display are often wildly
different.  But such results are worth the effort, imho.

Good topic, good discussion.

SteveA
California

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)

Nick Hocking
In reply to this post by Community Working Group

While people work out how to remove the multitude of tiger ways that don't actually exist, downgrade others from the incorrect "residential" to "unclassified" or "track"
depending on imagery or ground survey, and fix the geometry of all unedited TIGER data, I beleive that it's absolutely essential (from safety and useability perspectives) to immediately mark all these uncertain ways as unroutable.

Whether to make them driveways or use access=no , I've no idea.

I think thrse ways can easily be identified by...

1) They are original TIGER data import
2) They have not been edited since import
3) They are "higway=residential"
4) They are unnamed

A bot could do this easily and then it really doesn't matter how long it takes to find the best solution.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)

Michael Patrick
In reply to this post by Community Working Group
I think the other half of the equation, however, is actually getting this
fixed across the country. At present it appears to be just a small number of mappers doing it in their areas; the US is a big place, and at the current rate it's not going to be fixed any time soon. Drive-by tools like
MapRoulette are generally a good solution for systemic data quality
problems, but in this case I think the problem's too big for that. ... Anything else?

Imports. The bulk of the roads in the OSM USA came from the US Census, but fundamentally, the TIGER data base was primarily designed to support census activities. Besides the the Census Bureau, there are many other federal agencies such as the BLM, BIA, DOD, etc. and their congruent state agencies that have available detailed GIS dataset available. For example:

The Forest Service Road System  " ... consists of more than 380,000 miles of roads. The types of roads range from permanent, double-lane, paved highways to single-lane, low-standard roads intended only for use by high-clearance vehicles, such as pickup trucks." from http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/road_mgt/qanda.shtml#Background

"A road is a motor vehicle travel way over 50 inches wide, unless classified and managed as a trail. The II_ROAD_CORE table includes all of the nationally required data fields representing road characteristics" Complete metadata describing these attributes ( legal right to control or regulate use of the route, Current physical state of being of the route segment, Maintenance level , Surface type, etc. ) at  http://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/edw_resources/meta/S_USA.RoadCore_FS.xml - this attribute set ('tags') collectively allows evaluation of aspects like 'passability' for different types of vehicles etc. 

Data for Motor Vehicle Use Map: Roads, Motor Vehicle Use Map: Trails, National Forest System Roads, National Historic and National Scenic Trails at http://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php , overlayed on the NAIP in QGIS:

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by Nick Hocking
Hi,

On 09/02/2014 05:27 AM, Nick Hocking wrote:
> I beleive that it's absolutely essential (from
> safety and useability perspectives) to immediately mark all these
> uncertain ways as unroutable.

...

> A bot could do this easily and then it really doesn't matter how long it
> takes to find the best solution.

Why not simply agree on the criteria for identifying "unroutable roads"
and publish them suitably, so that those who run routing engines can
decide for themselves. It should be trivial to adapt a router's graph
preparation step to ignore routes that match the criteria.

Marking a road access=no without knowing whether it exists or what kind
of surface or access restriction it has in reality sounds not like OSM
to me. If you are so unsure about their existence, then you may need to
simply remove the highway attribute...

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)

Mike N.
In reply to this post by Nick Hocking
On 9/1/2014 11:27 PM, Nick Hocking wrote:
> I think thrse ways can easily be identified by...
>
> 1) They are original TIGER data import
> 2) They have not been edited since import
> 3) They are "higway=residential"
> 4) They are unnamed

Another way to select roads having suspicious routing would be:

   Unnamed residential connecting between roads having name and/or ref.

  That set of roads may be small enough to be suitable for MapRoulette
where they could be re-marked as track / service / etc if appropriate.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)

OSM Volunteer stevea
In reply to this post by Michael Patrick
Re: [Talk-us] Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)
I think the other half of the equation, however, is actually getting this
fixed across the country. At present it appears to be just a small number of mappers doing it in their areas; the US is a big place, and at the current rate it's not going to be fixed any time soon. Drive-by tools like
MapRoulette are generally a good solution for systemic data quality
problems, but in this case I think the problem's too big for that. ... Anything else?

I certainly agree:  the US is large, our mapper density here is low.  That makes for slow-to-build map data.
To which Michael Patrick replies:

Imports. The bulk of the roads in the OSM USA came from the US Census, but fundamentally, the TIGER data base was primarily designed to support census activities. Besides the the Census Bureau, there are many other federal agencies such as the BLM, BIA, DOD, etc. and their congruent state agencies that have available detailed GIS dataset available. (Continues...)

Yes, this is true.  Sometimes such (federal, or state, or local, like a city GIS department) data are quite useful, sometimes such data (as TIGER) are not useful.  OSM's TIGER data, many of us agree, are noisy, tagged in a uniform way (residential) when that is less than optimal, and have been discussed many times as "need to be corrected."  Correcting old, noisy TIGER data is possible, even by a bot, but either way, manually it is huge work (and we hardly have THAT many willing volunteers), nor have we sustained an effort to take a systematic approach to entering newer, better data, which at least partly likely means a carefully written and deployed bot.  Yes, this COULD be done, and may eventually, but it is a lot of work.  Let's consider it a medium-term goal.

In short, there are lots of good data out there that might be imported.  But, federal data (while sometimes good, sometimes bad/obsolete/noisy) often cover only federal land, state/county/local data are "patchy" and just that:  local, and our import process is detailed and takes time, people, effort, consensus and dedication.  So, results are around what we have here in the USA:  a mishmash of noisy federal data that hangs over much of the rural, "TIGER desert" areas like an old spider web, and shiny gems of smaller pockets of attention (local areas, counties, even states) where dedicated volunteers polish up the data to be fairly useful (beautiful, routable, commercializable, extendable...).  Good, but we must do better.

There is no magic bullet.  We want excellent data that are correct and up-to-date.  We have a vast fifty states in which to do this:  the fourth-largest country on Earth by area.  Yet, it has been said many times:  OSM in the USA has a relatively low density of users.  Yes, our data get better, but not quickly.  Specific and targeted projects that identify and project-manage specific sub-areas, with good discussion, consensus and roll-up-our-sleeves work is what is going to correct this.  This will take time, let's just agree to that.

I'd like to see (more) well-identified, well-prioritized, even-novices-can-do-this-if-they-want such projects emerge and be displayed in our wiki (or someplace) so that fired-up OSM volunteers itching to map can "shop along the shelf," pick out a sub-project that gives chew-and-digest satisfaction (whether it lasts a day, a  week or a month) and results in that warm feeling of accomplishment (beautiful, high quality data as useful results) once done.  Now, THAT'S a crowd-sourced mapping project!  We're getting there, though in a low gear.  Discussions like these, some identification, some organization, some inspiration, and we will rev it up faster.  Elephants are best eaten one bite at a time.  (A metaphor, not literal)

SteveA
California

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)

Clifford Snow
In reply to this post by Michael Patrick

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:52 AM, stevea <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'd like to see (more) well-identified, well-prioritized, even-novices-can-do-this-if-they-want such projects emerge and be displayed in our wiki (or someplace) so that fired-up OSM volunteers itching to map can "shop along the shelf," pick out a sub-project that gives chew-and-digest satisfaction (whether it lasts a day, a  week or a month) and results in that warm feeling of accomplishment (beautiful, high quality data as useful results) once done.  Now, THAT'S a crowd-sourced mapping project!  We're getting there, though in a low gear.  Discussions like these, some identification, some organization, some inspiration, and we will rev it up faster.  Elephants are best eaten one bite at a time.  (A metaphor, not literal)

+1


--
@osm_seattle
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)

Mark Newnham
Seeing as I already spend 70% of my time mapping unpaved roads in Colorado, and I've some opinions of my own about the subject, I'm happy to set up and run wiki pages etc bout the subject if people think that this would help

Mark


From: Clifford Snow <[hidden email]>
To: stevea <[hidden email]>
Cc: talk-us <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2014 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)


On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:52 AM, stevea <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'd like to see (more) well-identified, well-prioritized, even-novices-can-do-this-if-they-want such projects emerge and be displayed in our wiki (or someplace) so that fired-up OSM volunteers itching to map can "shop along the shelf," pick out a sub-project that gives chew-and-digest satisfaction (whether it lasts a day, a  week or a month) and results in that warm feeling of accomplishment (beautiful, high quality data as useful results) once done.  Now, THAT'S a crowd-sourced mapping project!  We're getting there, though in a low gear.  Discussions like these, some identification, some organization, some inspiration, and we will rev it up faster.  Elephants are best eaten one bite at a time.  (A metaphor, not literal)

+1


--
@osm_seattle
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us



_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
12