Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
41 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

Clifford Snow
How many of the TIGER imported streets are still untouched? Looking at typical urban area with a high number of OSM contributors the your answer might be very few. Seattle for example only has one street left, and unnamed street in the far south of Seattle. King County, just under 6,000 sq km, has 292 untouched ways. Extrapolating the results to Washington State, with 39 counties, you expect to see somewhere around 11,000 untouched ways. It's almost three times that number.

Washington State today has over 30,000 untouched highway=residential, far more than what you would might expect from looking at King County. Many of the untouched ways are located in areas known for timber harvest, most likely forest service roads (at best highway=unclassified, or highway=tracks, or not even there) and many others are service roads to farms and homes. 

Because King County has by far the largest population of active mappers, it has touched just about every street in the county. Even the more remote areas of eastern King County which is popular with hikers.

Utah, a far less populated state has over 7,500 untouched ways. (But an absolutely gorgeous state, second only to Washington State 😀)

Western states may be more susceptible because of the number of forest service roads. All states likely have the problem of ways classified as residential when they should be service roads.

Martijn van Exel and I have created a couple of Maproulette tasks to fix these ways. It's dangerous to leave them. Having a way classified as residential when they are likely 4WD tracks in the mountain isn't safe. We don't want some unsuspecting family out on a Sunday drive to get stranded. If you do work on the tasks be careful not to just delete ways in the forest as I was reminded recently. They may be used by hikers and hunters. Correct the highway classification and align the with the imagery. Consider using Strava heatmaps to assist tracing the ways.

If you want to help out, jump on one of the tasks below.
Utah: http://maproulette.org/mr3/challenge/2867 (Your chance to try the beta version of Maproulette 3)
Washington: http://maproulette.org/map/2871 (It doesn't show up when searching for challenges for reasons that I can't explain)

Does your state have a problem? Run the following overpass query to find out:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/w74 - just replace "Washington"  Need help creating a Maproulette Challenge - just ask.

There is one other way to help in a big way. Recruit mappers in rural areas. Have recommendations on who to target and how to get in touch - share them. Have some success stories, tell us how you accomplished it.

Best,
Clifford



--
@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: Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

Kevin Broderick
Please, please, please don't convert rural roads to tracks based on imagery alone unless it's incredibly clear (and that would exclude anything with forest cover).

While many of them should definitely be unclassified, not residential, downgrading the main rural routes to tracks doesn't match local usage nor the functional topology of the road network in such places. There are a lot of USFS and BLM roads around here that are the only way to access significant areas, that commonly see normal passenger-car traffic and that can be traveled at reasonable speed in a sedan (or at 30+ MPH with a little ground clearance and driving skill),. Having these differentiated from true tracks (where even a stock 4x4 is likely going to be operating at 15 MPH or less) is incredibly helpful for routing and visual use of the map, and it's a lot easier to recognize what I'd call "areas of questionable data" when they haven't been aggressively armchair-mapped. Also, the smoothness key is really helpful for tracks and impossible to map from orthoimagery.

Even with local knowledge, it's tough to look at some of the local unpaved roads on imagery and identify which sections are car-friendly and which aren't (and it's often different for different sections of the same road, e.g. Crooked Creek Rd. that goes from Carbon County, Wyoming into Carbon County, Montana in the Pryor Mountains is arguably a track where it's on BLM land and is definitively a good gravel road through USFS land). Most of the rest of the roads in the Pryors are either questionable on the track vs road border or very clearly tracks. Right now, many are still labeled as roads, which is obviously wrong, but downgrading piecemeal without being able to correctly classify the whole area makes it much harder to glance at the GPS screen and say, "OK, I need to take this with a shaker of salt, there's no way there are that many good roads in there"; downgrading some but not all would give a false impression of data precision.

Yes, it's unfortunate when people decide to blindly follow their GPS or online mapping route without applying common sense, but it's better to have data that is obviously low-precision (at least to anyone used to traveling in such areas) instead of giving the false impression of higher precision than is actually present. It's also misleading if the whole road is marked as a track when several (or more) miles are maintained gravel and it then turns into a 4x4 track, as someone can easily start driving up the maintained gravel, think "Oh, this is what they mean by track—I can drive this, no problem" and then end up way up an effective dead end that connects through only on a dirt bike, ATV, or 4x4.

I'd agree 100% that it would be great to have more mappers in rural areas, and I wish I had the time to deal with the data s***show in some of the more-remote places around here. I've updated a few things that I've driven and could remember how good (or bad) the road was, but unless I remember to take georeferenced photos or notes, it can be really hard to remember what was passenger-car friendly vs. what was something that I'd prefer to ride along in someone else's Subaru for. The problem isn't unique to OSM; none of the printed maps I've found are particularly great on the same roads (including both Delorme Gazetteers and Benchmark Atlases).

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Clifford Snow <[hidden email]> wrote:
How many of the TIGER imported streets are still untouched? Looking at typical urban area with a high number of OSM contributors the your answer might be very few. Seattle for example only has one street left, and unnamed street in the far south of Seattle. King County, just under 6,000 sq km, has 292 untouched ways. Extrapolating the results to Washington State, with 39 counties, you expect to see somewhere around 11,000 untouched ways. It's almost three times that number.

Washington State today has over 30,000 untouched highway=residential, far more than what you would might expect from looking at King County. Many of the untouched ways are located in areas known for timber harvest, most likely forest service roads (at best highway=unclassified, or highway=tracks, or not even there) and many others are service roads to farms and homes. 

Because King County has by far the largest population of active mappers, it has touched just about every street in the county. Even the more remote areas of eastern King County which is popular with hikers.

Utah, a far less populated state has over 7,500 untouched ways. (But an absolutely gorgeous state, second only to Washington State 😀)

Western states may be more susceptible because of the number of forest service roads. All states likely have the problem of ways classified as residential when they should be service roads.

Martijn van Exel and I have created a couple of Maproulette tasks to fix these ways. It's dangerous to leave them. Having a way classified as residential when they are likely 4WD tracks in the mountain isn't safe. We don't want some unsuspecting family out on a Sunday drive to get stranded. If you do work on the tasks be careful not to just delete ways in the forest as I was reminded recently. They may be used by hikers and hunters. Correct the highway classification and align the with the imagery. Consider using Strava heatmaps to assist tracing the ways.

If you want to help out, jump on one of the tasks below.
Utah: http://maproulette.org/mr3/challenge/2867 (Your chance to try the beta version of Maproulette 3)
Washington: http://maproulette.org/map/2871 (It doesn't show up when searching for challenges for reasons that I can't explain)

Does your state have a problem? Run the following overpass query to find out:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/w74 - just replace "Washington"  Need help creating a Maproulette Challenge - just ask.

There is one other way to help in a big way. Recruit mappers in rural areas. Have recommendations on who to target and how to get in touch - share them. Have some success stories, tell us how you accomplished it.

Best,
Clifford



--
@osm_seattle
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

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




--
Kevin Broderick

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

Re: Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

max
In reply to this post by Clifford Snow
In National Forests, USFS road data usually has sensible information
about the suitability of roads for general traffic.

There's an imagery layer showing the Forest Service data:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/26099

I prefer opening transformed data as a layer in JOSM. Here's the
script I use to translate the data:

https://gist.github.com/maxerickson/32ca41e72458b12a5734f97f75800448

Followed by a command like

    ogr2ogr /share/gis/extracts/test.shp /share/gis/USFSOsm/ -clipsrc
-85.2 46.2 -84.5 46.6

to clip out an area of interest. The advantage is not having to
remember a second set of visualizations for the various road features.


Max

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

Re: Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

stevea
In reply to this post by Clifford Snow
Clifford Snow <[hidden email]> wrote
> How many of the TIGER imported streets are still untouched?

Thanks for rallying us with this great thrust forward, Clifford, with excellent Challenges, resources and direction.  I'd like to add one more tool I use for TIGER cleanup, the Ito! map at:  http://product.itoworld.com/map/162?lon=-122&lat=47&zoom=9&fullscreen=true

This can be slow to load, and subsequent changes you make take several days to a couple of weeks to re-render, but over a longer-term (months to years) I have found it to be a valuable tool.  When a "divide and conquer" strategy is applied (for example, a county or sub-area of a county), progress becomes visually rewarding.  Seattle, largely dark blue (great!) or light blue (OK for now) looks better-than-average, as you note and as would be expected.  However, as soon as you drop out of the urban megalopolis, things get orange (fix me) and red (fix me FIRST!) rather quickly.  This helps prioritize what TIGER data need attention sooner, like right now!

Remember, after you review tags and alignment of TIGER data, REMOVE the tiger:reviewed=no tag, don't change its value to yes.

I don't want to pick a year as to when the US will "finish fixing TIGER," it might be decades.  But that's OK, it will be worth it, as our map gets better every day.

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

Re: Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

Tod Fitch

> On Feb 12, 2018, at 12:11 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Clifford Snow <[hidden email]> wrote
>> How many of the TIGER imported streets are still untouched?
>
> Thanks for rallying us with this great thrust forward, Clifford, with excellent Challenges, resources and direction.  I'd like to add one more tool I use for TIGER cleanup, the Ito! map at:  http://product.itoworld.com/map/162?lon=-122&lat=47&zoom=9&fullscreen=true
>
> This can be slow to load, and subsequent changes you make take several days to a couple of weeks to re-render, but over a longer-term (months to years) I have found it to be a valuable tool.  When a "divide and conquer" strategy is applied (for example, a county or sub-area of a county), progress becomes visually rewarding.  Seattle, largely dark blue (great!) or light blue (OK for now) looks better-than-average, as you note and as would be expected.  However, as soon as you drop out of the urban megalopolis, things get orange (fix me) and red (fix me FIRST!) rather quickly.  This helps prioritize what TIGER data need attention sooner, like right now!
>
> Remember, after you review tags and alignment of TIGER data, REMOVE the tiger:reviewed=no tag, don't change its value to yes.
>

Thank you Steve for that ITO link. I was unaware of that and it really is a nice tool to see the overall status of the TIGER fixup in an area.

I used to simply delete the the tiger:reviewed tag. But, based on things I’ve read either in the mail lists or elsewhere, more recently I’ve been deleting all the TIGER tags when I’ve surveyed the road and fixed any alignment, etc. issues. I see on the ITO map that changes the color to black whilst simply removing the reviewed tag turns it blue. . .

Anyway, what is the current best practice dealing with TIGER tags once the road has been surveyed and corrected? Remove all TIGER tags or just the reviewed tag?

Thanks!
Tod



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

Re: Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

stevea
On Feb 12, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Tod Fitch <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Thank you Steve for that ITO link. I was unaware of that and it really is a nice tool to see the overall status of the TIGER fixup in an area.

You are welcome, Tod; I'm happy to share what I know.

> I used to simply delete the the tiger:reviewed tag. But, based on things I’ve read either in the mail lists or elsewhere, more recently I’ve been deleting all the TIGER tags when I’ve surveyed the road and fixed any alignment, etc. issues. I see on the ITO map that changes the color to black whilst simply removing the reviewed tag turns it blue. . .

Yes, and this makes for an interesting view that Ito map provides, as areas which had roads non-TIGER added (manually or from another dataset/import) do show up as black.  For example, some Native American reservations display as all-black in this map, as many areas received no ways with TIGER tagging.

> Anyway, what is the current best practice dealing with TIGER tags once the road has been surveyed and corrected? Remove all TIGER tags or just the reviewed tag?

As I am not familiar with the "things you've read," while also wondering myself whether additional TIGER tags (tiger:cfcc, tiger:zip, etc.) should remain or be deleted, I also pose this question to the greater talk-us community.  What DO we do with these additional TIGER tags as we endeavor to "clean up TIGER" in the USA?  Is there consensus on a definitive "best practice" for removing or leaving them?  (Consensus is clear that we remove tiger:reviewed=no after we've reviewed the way).

Our wiki https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/TIGER_fixup is silent on this particular issue (of removing or leaving additional tags).  BTW another wiki of ours, https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/TIGER_Edited_Map gives a nice overview/documentation of the Ito map.

We might create a new thread or keep it in this one:  but even as a seasoned TIGER cleanup volunteer, I don't know what to do with additional TIGER tags, and I guarantee everybody reading this that I'm not alone there!

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

Re: Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

Mike N.
On 2/12/2018 4:25 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
> As I am not familiar with the "things you've read," while also wondering myself whether additional TIGER tags (tiger:cfcc, tiger:zip, etc.) should remain or be deleted, I also pose this question to the greater talk-us community.  What DO we do with these additional TIGER tags as we endeavor to "clean up TIGER" in the USA?  Is there consensus on a definitive "best practice" for removing or leaving them?  (Consensus is clear that we remove tiger:reviewed=no after we've reviewed the way).

JOSM has an internal list of TIGER tags that are silently removed on any
edit - I find tiger:zip and tiger:county to be somewhat useful on
maproulette challenges so I know where I landed.   There's probably
another way to get that information though.  I'm not sure if tiger:cfcc
has any supporters.   There's also this patch, and I don't know if any
others have been added.

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

Re: Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

Clifford Snow
In reply to this post by Kevin Broderick


On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:55 AM, Kevin Broderick <[hidden email]> wrote:
Please, please, please don't convert rural roads to tracks based on imagery alone unless it's incredibly clear (and that would exclude anything with forest cover).

While many of them should definitely be unclassified, not residential, downgrading the main rural routes to tracks doesn't match local usage nor the functional topology of the road network in such places. There are a lot of USFS and BLM roads around here that are the only way to access significant areas, that commonly see normal passenger-car traffic and that can be traveled at reasonable speed in a sedan (or at 30+ MPH with a little ground clearance and driving skill),. Having these differentiated from true tracks (where even a stock 4x4 is likely going to be operating at 15 MPH or less) is incredibly helpful for routing and visual use of the map, and it's a lot easier to recognize what I'd call "areas of questionable data" when they haven't been aggressively armchair-mapped. Also, the smoothness key is really helpful for tracks and impossible to map from orthoimagery.

Kevin,
I live next door to forested land. I can see forest service roads from my house, especially after a clear cut operation.  Most are their to aid in harvesting operations. Once the work is done, the road is unmaintained. Washington State, particularly western Washington State are full of these artifacts from the TIGER import. These ways have long since disappeared from Census TIGER data.  If they belong in OSM, someone should map them. Let's not leave in these potentially dangerous ways only because they might be real.   There are a couple of good sources for better data, first the 2017 TIGER layer can help identify if the road is in someone's database. If its in TIGER, then I'd leave it in OSM. The US Forest Service layer is another good source. But like Washington State's DNR data, much of it's unknown.  Of the 925,000 roads in the DNR's database, 84% are in unknown status. Only 12% are active, and those include state highways. The rest are abandoned, decommissioned, orphaned, close or not yet built. I did talk to the DNR about using their data, but they cautioned me against it for the same reason I'm trying to clean up the old TIGER data - the data is garbage. If the state doesn't know, then I doubt the USFS is any better. 

Even with local knowledge, it's tough to look at some of the local unpaved roads on imagery and identify which sections are car-friendly and which aren't (and it's often different for different sections of the same road, e.g. Crooked Creek Rd. that goes from Carbon County, Wyoming into Carbon County, Montana in the Pryor Mountains is arguably a track where it's on BLM land and is definitively a good gravel road through USFS land). Most of the rest of the roads in the Pryors are either questionable on the track vs road border or very clearly tracks. Right now, many are still labeled as roads, which is obviously wrong, but downgrading piecemeal without being able to correctly classify the whole area makes it much harder to glance at the GPS screen and say, "OK, I need to take this with a shaker of salt, there's no way there are that many good roads in there"; downgrading some but not all would give a false impression of data precision.

How does leaving them in help? 

Yes, it's unfortunate when people decide to blindly follow their GPS or online mapping route without applying common sense, but it's better to have data that is obviously low-precision (at least to anyone used to traveling in such areas) instead of giving the false impression of higher precision than is actually present. It's also misleading if the whole road is marked as a track when several (or more) miles are maintained gravel and it then turns into a 4x4 track, as someone can easily start driving up the maintained gravel, think "Oh, this is what they mean by track—I can drive this, no problem" and then end up way up an effective dead end that connects through only on a dirt bike, ATV, or 4x4.


 

I'd agree 100% that it would be great to have more mappers in rural areas, and I wish I had the time to deal with the data s***show in some of the more-remote places around here. I've updated a few things that I've driven and could remember how good (or bad) the road was, but unless I remember to take georeferenced photos or notes, it can be really hard to remember what was passenger-car friendly vs. what was something that I'd prefer to ride along in someone else's Subaru for. The problem isn't unique to OSM; none of the printed maps I've found are particularly great on the same roads (including both Delorme Gazetteers and Benchmark Atlases).

The long term fix is more mappers, especially rural, hunters, hikers, off-road bikers, etc.  


@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: Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

Kevin Kenny-4
In reply to this post by Kevin Broderick
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Kevin Broderick <[hidden email]> wrote:
Please, please, please don't convert rural roads to tracks based on imagery alone unless it's incredibly clear (and that would exclude anything with forest cover).

While many of them should definitely be unclassified, not residential, downgrading the main rural routes to tracks doesn't match local usage nor the functional topology of the road network in such places. There are a lot of USFS and BLM roads around here that are the only way to access significant areas, that commonly see normal passenger-car traffic and that can be traveled at reasonable speed in a sedan (or at 30+ MPH with a little ground clearance and driving skill),. Having these differentiated from true tracks (where even a stock 4x4 is likely going to be operating at 15 MPH or less) is incredibly helpful for routing and visual use of the map, and it's a lot easier to recognize what I'd call "areas of questionable data" when they haven't been aggressively armchair-mapped. Also, the smoothness key is really helpful for tracks and impossible to map from orthoimagery.


Yes, yes, yes.

In the rural areas that I can travel to readily, TIGER is downright hallucinatory (and there are few enough mappers that cleanup has been agonizingly slow). TIGER has roads in places where no road is, ever was, or even ever could be. (I've seen one going up a series of cliffs totalling about 2000 feet of ascent!) But even in 'leaves down' images, it's nearly impossible to see the forest roads, much less trace them, and there is definitely a wide variation in quality. Some of them are well-compacted sand and shale, that once they've been rolled in the spring, support driving at 30+ MPH. Others, I wouldn't bring my Subaru on. (Although I've been on a few of those in the ancient Ford Explorrer that the Subaru replaced.)  Some are gated, some, you simply have to decide for yourself that they're not drivable.

The 'dirt roads' range from 'highway=path abandoned:highway=track smoothness=impassable' to 'highway=tertiary surface=compacted smoothness=intermediate', with no way for an armchair mapper to tell among them.

The old road maps that they used to give out at gas stations had, on many of these roads, "inquire locally for conditions," which is still good advice. The signage may say, "LIMITED PURPOSE SEASONAL-USE ROAD: No maintenance November 1-April 15" - but in practice, they'll keep it open later in the Autumn unless the snow comes early, and when they open it in the spring depends on when the crews can get it clear - it could be weeks late if there's been a bad washout or rock slide. There's absolutely no way to tag and encode that sort of thing. Inquire locally for conditions.



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

Re: Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

Martijn van Exel-3
I am very happy to see this rekindled interest in TIGER cleanup!

Having done a fair amount of backcountry exploring, I know that there is a wide range of road grades and aerial imagery alone is not enough to decide how navigable a roads is for a particular type of vehicle. Or, for that matter, what its access limitations are. I do agree with Clifford that leaving them as poorly aligned 'residential' roads is the worst possible situation. Yes, worse than deleting the road altogether. What I usually do is mark the road as track without a track grade tag. This seems to me to be the most acceptable generic solution for a remote mapper: acknowledging that something that could potentially be navigated by a 4 wheeled vehicle exists, without being more specific. Local knowledge can then come to the rescue to upgrade to unclassified if appropriate.

Another note on the MapRoulette side of things: I would very much appreciate your feedback on the new MapRoulette version Clifford linked to. Just email me, join #maproulette on slack, or file an issue at https://github.com/maproulette/maproulette3/issues

Martijn

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Kevin Broderick <[hidden email]> wrote:
Please, please, please don't convert rural roads to tracks based on imagery alone unless it's incredibly clear (and that would exclude anything with forest cover).

While many of them should definitely be unclassified, not residential, downgrading the main rural routes to tracks doesn't match local usage nor the functional topology of the road network in such places. There are a lot of USFS and BLM roads around here that are the only way to access significant areas, that commonly see normal passenger-car traffic and that can be traveled at reasonable speed in a sedan (or at 30+ MPH with a little ground clearance and driving skill),. Having these differentiated from true tracks (where even a stock 4x4 is likely going to be operating at 15 MPH or less) is incredibly helpful for routing and visual use of the map, and it's a lot easier to recognize what I'd call "areas of questionable data" when they haven't been aggressively armchair-mapped. Also, the smoothness key is really helpful for tracks and impossible to map from orthoimagery.


Yes, yes, yes.

In the rural areas that I can travel to readily, TIGER is downright hallucinatory (and there are few enough mappers that cleanup has been agonizingly slow). TIGER has roads in places where no road is, ever was, or even ever could be. (I've seen one going up a series of cliffs totalling about 2000 feet of ascent!) But even in 'leaves down' images, it's nearly impossible to see the forest roads, much less trace them, and there is definitely a wide variation in quality. Some of them are well-compacted sand and shale, that once they've been rolled in the spring, support driving at 30+ MPH. Others, I wouldn't bring my Subaru on. (Although I've been on a few of those in the ancient Ford Explorrer that the Subaru replaced.)  Some are gated, some, you simply have to decide for yourself that they're not drivable.

The 'dirt roads' range from 'highway=path abandoned:highway=track smoothness=impassable' to 'highway=tertiary surface=compacted smoothness=intermediate', with no way for an armchair mapper to tell among them.

The old road maps that they used to give out at gas stations had, on many of these roads, "inquire locally for conditions," which is still good advice. The signage may say, "LIMITED PURPOSE SEASONAL-USE ROAD: No maintenance November 1-April 15" - but in practice, they'll keep it open later in the Autumn unless the snow comes early, and when they open it in the spring depends on when the crews can get it clear - it could be weeks late if there's been a bad washout or rock slide. There's absolutely no way to tag and encode that sort of thing. Inquire locally for conditions.



_______________________________________________
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

Kevin Broderick
If you can cover an entire area (which I'd define as a swath between the nearest state highways), I agree that downgrading to track absent other clues is one reasonable solution. One of my key points is that anyone who's spent a fair bit of time trying to use GPS maps (of any origin) in poorly-mapped areas will quickly recognize an area that is clearly an unverified TIGER import, which signals both (a) that the data is clearly questionable and (b) that it might be an interesting place to explore to find out if the roads do go through or not. The questionable map data can be very useful, especially in conjunction with other data sources, in attempting to piece together a route through an area that lacks fully maintained roadways. If a track doesn't actually exist, yes, then it should certainly be deleted, but I've ridden right-of-ways that were damn near impossible to see with leaf-on imagery and also found other routes that looked more road-like via the same imagery impassable, so I definitely wouldn't delete anything unless you can get there in person and look for evidence of a roadway, perhaps one that hasn't been maintained in decades (e.g. Class IV roads in Vermont and Class VI roads in New Hampshire).

Downgrading some ways to tracks without doing so to a whole localized network creates the appearance of a higher level of data accuracy than actually exists, which IMO is more likely to bite someone in the ass than having a localized network of roads that are mislabeled. I know it would make some of the exploring I've done via on/off-road motorcycle more difficult.

I'd also suggest that leaving tiger:reviewed at no is appropriate if you haven't been able to travel the road/track in question and determine whether it is really an unclassified road or a track, so it remains flagged for further review if someone has the time and proximity to do so.

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:39 PM, Martijn van Exel <[hidden email]> wrote:
I am very happy to see this rekindled interest in TIGER cleanup!

Having done a fair amount of backcountry exploring, I know that there is a wide range of road grades and aerial imagery alone is not enough to decide how navigable a roads is for a particular type of vehicle. Or, for that matter, what its access limitations are. I do agree with Clifford that leaving them as poorly aligned 'residential' roads is the worst possible situation. Yes, worse than deleting the road altogether. What I usually do is mark the road as track without a track grade tag. This seems to me to be the most acceptable generic solution for a remote mapper: acknowledging that something that could potentially be navigated by a 4 wheeled vehicle exists, without being more specific. Local knowledge can then come to the rescue to upgrade to unclassified if appropriate.

Another note on the MapRoulette side of things: I would very much appreciate your feedback on the new MapRoulette version Clifford linked to. Just email me, join #maproulette on slack, or file an issue at https://github.com/maproulette/maproulette3/issues

Martijn

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Kevin Broderick <[hidden email]> wrote:
Please, please, please don't convert rural roads to tracks based on imagery alone unless it's incredibly clear (and that would exclude anything with forest cover).

While many of them should definitely be unclassified, not residential, downgrading the main rural routes to tracks doesn't match local usage nor the functional topology of the road network in such places. There are a lot of USFS and BLM roads around here that are the only way to access significant areas, that commonly see normal passenger-car traffic and that can be traveled at reasonable speed in a sedan (or at 30+ MPH with a little ground clearance and driving skill),. Having these differentiated from true tracks (where even a stock 4x4 is likely going to be operating at 15 MPH or less) is incredibly helpful for routing and visual use of the map, and it's a lot easier to recognize what I'd call "areas of questionable data" when they haven't been aggressively armchair-mapped. Also, the smoothness key is really helpful for tracks and impossible to map from orthoimagery.


Yes, yes, yes.

In the rural areas that I can travel to readily, TIGER is downright hallucinatory (and there are few enough mappers that cleanup has been agonizingly slow). TIGER has roads in places where no road is, ever was, or even ever could be. (I've seen one going up a series of cliffs totalling about 2000 feet of ascent!) But even in 'leaves down' images, it's nearly impossible to see the forest roads, much less trace them, and there is definitely a wide variation in quality. Some of them are well-compacted sand and shale, that once they've been rolled in the spring, support driving at 30+ MPH. Others, I wouldn't bring my Subaru on. (Although I've been on a few of those in the ancient Ford Explorrer that the Subaru replaced.)  Some are gated, some, you simply have to decide for yourself that they're not drivable.

The 'dirt roads' range from 'highway=path abandoned:highway=track smoothness=impassable' to 'highway=tertiary surface=compacted smoothness=intermediate', with no way for an armchair mapper to tell among them.

The old road maps that they used to give out at gas stations had, on many of these roads, "inquire locally for conditions," which is still good advice. The signage may say, "LIMITED PURPOSE SEASONAL-USE ROAD: No maintenance November 1-April 15" - but in practice, they'll keep it open later in the Autumn unless the snow comes early, and when they open it in the spring depends on when the crews can get it clear - it could be weeks late if there's been a bad washout or rock slide. There's absolutely no way to tag and encode that sort of thing. Inquire locally for conditions.



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





--
Kevin Broderick

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

Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

Brian May
I have spent a very large amount of time cleaning up TIGER in rural areas of Florida. I agree with others that the vast majority of untouched TIGER ways in un-populated rural areas classified as residential are forest roads for logging trucks at best and pure fantasy at worst, with tons of barely grass paths all over the place. Many of these roads are on private lands that you can't (or shouldn't) access anyway. Spatially accuracy is often horrific. I've reviewed a decent amount of 2017 TIGER and many areas have not been fixed. The best secondary source of data I have found are county streets from the county GIS departments, but those vary widely in quality. At the very least the county data shows you where all the forest tracks, farms tracks and imaginary TIGER streets are, because they are not there in the county data sets. Many times, a residential street having no name is a strong tip as well that it is not a residential street.

Kevin, I hear where you are coming from, but I think your case is somewhat unique. Most people aren't going to look at a GPS with OSM data in it, see a bunch of residential roads in a rural un-populated area and think, OK, that must be unedited TIGER, but I know there's a few navigable roads in there somewhere, I just need to find them, record what I found and make some OSM edits. If they know the area, they are going to think this data is junk. If they don't know the area and they head into it they will then figure out pretty quickly the data is junk. I agree with others that these roads should probably not be in OSM at all - let the locals add the real roads and tracks. But we are living with the old TIGER, and there is some potential usefulness that can come from it. So as others have said, we are willing to leave them there, downgrade them to track without a grade assigned for now, maybe make some spatial corrections, delete roads that are obviously pure fantasy, etc.

I don't think there should be any requirement to cover a certain size area when reviewing these areas. We need to be thankful that someone has taken the time to look at even a small area of rural areas that don't get much attention normally at all, especially private lands.

Brian

On 2/12/2018 6:02 PM, Kevin Broderick wrote:
If you can cover an entire area (which I'd define as a swath between the nearest state highways), I agree that downgrading to track absent other clues is one reasonable solution. One of my key points is that anyone who's spent a fair bit of time trying to use GPS maps (of any origin) in poorly-mapped areas will quickly recognize an area that is clearly an unverified TIGER import, which signals both (a) that the data is clearly questionable and (b) that it might be an interesting place to explore to find out if the roads do go through or not. The questionable map data can be very useful, especially in conjunction with other data sources, in attempting to piece together a route through an area that lacks fully maintained roadways. If a track doesn't actually exist, yes, then it should certainly be deleted, but I've ridden right-of-ways that were damn near impossible to see with leaf-on imagery and also found other routes that looked more road-like via the same imagery impassable, so I definitely wouldn't delete anything unless you can get there in person and look for evidence of a roadway, perhaps one that hasn't been maintained in decades (e.g. Class IV roads in Vermont and Class VI roads in New Hampshire).

Downgrading some ways to tracks without doing so to a whole localized network creates the appearance of a higher level of data accuracy than actually exists, which IMO is more likely to bite someone in the ass than having a localized network of roads that are mislabeled. I know it would make some of the exploring I've done via on/off-road motorcycle more difficult.

I'd also suggest that leaving tiger:reviewed at no is appropriate if you haven't been able to travel the road/track in question and determine whether it is really an unclassified road or a track, so it remains flagged for further review if someone has the time and proximity to do so.

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:39 PM, Martijn van Exel <[hidden email]> wrote:
I am very happy to see this rekindled interest in TIGER cleanup!

Having done a fair amount of backcountry exploring, I know that there is a wide range of road grades and aerial imagery alone is not enough to decide how navigable a roads is for a particular type of vehicle. Or, for that matter, what its access limitations are. I do agree with Clifford that leaving them as poorly aligned 'residential' roads is the worst possible situation. Yes, worse than deleting the road altogether. What I usually do is mark the road as track without a track grade tag. This seems to me to be the most acceptable generic solution for a remote mapper: acknowledging that something that could potentially be navigated by a 4 wheeled vehicle exists, without being more specific. Local knowledge can then come to the rescue to upgrade to unclassified if appropriate.

Another note on the MapRoulette side of things: I would very much appreciate your feedback on the new MapRoulette version Clifford linked to. Just email me, join #maproulette on slack, or file an issue at https://github.com/maproulette/maproulette3/issues

Martijn

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Kevin Broderick <[hidden email]> wrote:
Please, please, please don't convert rural roads to tracks based on imagery alone unless it's incredibly clear (and that would exclude anything with forest cover).

While many of them should definitely be unclassified, not residential, downgrading the main rural routes to tracks doesn't match local usage nor the functional topology of the road network in such places. There are a lot of USFS and BLM roads around here that are the only way to access significant areas, that commonly see normal passenger-car traffic and that can be traveled at reasonable speed in a sedan (or at 30+ MPH with a little ground clearance and driving skill),. Having these differentiated from true tracks (where even a stock 4x4 is likely going to be operating at 15 MPH or less) is incredibly helpful for routing and visual use of the map, and it's a lot easier to recognize what I'd call "areas of questionable data" when they haven't been aggressively armchair-mapped. Also, the smoothness key is really helpful for tracks and impossible to map from orthoimagery.


Yes, yes, yes.

In the rural areas that I can travel to readily, TIGER is downright hallucinatory (and there are few enough mappers that cleanup has been agonizingly slow). TIGER has roads in places where no road is, ever was, or even ever could be. (I've seen one going up a series of cliffs totalling about 2000 feet of ascent!) But even in 'leaves down' images, it's nearly impossible to see the forest roads, much less trace them, and there is definitely a wide variation in quality. Some of them are well-compacted sand and shale, that once they've been rolled in the spring, support driving at 30+ MPH. Others, I wouldn't bring my Subaru on. (Although I've been on a few of those in the ancient Ford Explorrer that the Subaru replaced.)  Some are gated, some, you simply have to decide for yourself that they're not drivable.

The 'dirt roads' range from 'highway=path abandoned:highway=track smoothness=impassable' to 'highway=tertiary surface=compacted smoothness=intermediate', with no way for an armchair mapper to tell among them.

The old road maps that they used to give out at gas stations had, on many of these roads, "inquire locally for conditions," which is still good advice. The signage may say, "LIMITED PURPOSE SEASONAL-USE ROAD: No maintenance November 1-April 15" - but in practice, they'll keep it open later in the Autumn unless the snow comes early, and when they open it in the spring depends on when the crews can get it clear - it could be weeks late if there's been a bad washout or rock slide. There's absolutely no way to tag and encode that sort of thing. Inquire locally for conditions.



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





--
Kevin Broderick


_______________________________________________
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

Mark Wagner
In reply to this post by stevea
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:11:29 -0800
OSM Volunteer stevea <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Remember, after you review tags and alignment of TIGER data, REMOVE
> the tiger:reviewed=no tag, don't change its value to yes.

I don't remove the "tiger:reviewed=no" tag unless I've verified the
name and approximate classification of the road, in addition to the
alignment.  I've found too many cases where TIGER has the wrong name
for a road.

--
Mark

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

Re: Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

Mark Wagner
In reply to this post by stevea
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:25:02 -0800
OSM Volunteer stevea <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Feb 12, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Tod Fitch <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > Anyway, what is the current best practice dealing with TIGER tags
> > once the road has been surveyed and corrected? Remove all TIGER
> > tags or just the reviewed tag?  
>
> As I am not familiar with the "things you've read," while also
> wondering myself whether additional TIGER tags (tiger:cfcc,
> tiger:zip, etc.) should remain or be deleted, I also pose this
> question to the greater talk-us community.  What DO we do with these
> additional TIGER tags as we endeavor to "clean up TIGER" in the USA?
> Is there consensus on a definitive "best practice" for removing or
> leaving them?  (Consensus is clear that we remove tiger:reviewed=no
> after we've reviewed the way).
>
> Our wiki https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/TIGER_fixup is silent on this
> particular issue (of removing or leaving additional tags).  BTW
> another wiki of ours, https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/TIGER_Edited_Map
> gives a nice overview/documentation of the Ito map.
>
> We might create a new thread or keep it in this one:  but even as a
> seasoned TIGER cleanup volunteer, I don't know what to do with
> additional TIGER tags, and I guarantee everybody reading this that
> I'm not alone there!

I find the "tiger:county" tag to be useful as a quick way to figure out
where I am when looking at a changeset or otherwise am zoomed in on the
map while editing.  "tiger:zip" would be useful when adding addresses if
I could trust it, but it's wrong too often.  The rest of the tags
aren't useful because either they can be derived from the OSM-relevant
tags on the road, or they're wrong/outdated.

--
Mark

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

Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

AlaskaDave
In reply to this post by Brian May
I do a lot of mapping in Alaska and the quality of the Tiger roads in rural Alaska is simply horrendous. For some of the small communities I've worked on the Tiger ways are so far out of position I simply delete them and start fresh. There is no way to know where they should actually be. The main reason to keep them and why I sometimes make a guess about their positions is to preserve the street names. I'm never going to be able to visit these tiny communities because they are remote and exceedingly difficult to reach. Nobody can ever drive to them, there will probably never be any OSMers living in a town like Alakanuk, for example, nor is any resident likely to use the OSM data but it looks exceedingly bad to leave those ways as they are. So I often try to fix them. It's a tedious job at best. Along with that, there are the ugly coastlines to fix everywhere as well. Take a look at Alakanuk here (62.684314, -164.652965) to get an idea of what Alaska OSM mappers are up against.  

Anyway, my point is that most Tiger data I've encountered is so bad I wish it wasn't there at all. I would rather sketch in the roads (roads that I and 99.9999% of data consumers will never see or use), and toss the Tiger data completely. In my example town, I can make a reasonable guess about the position of the roads but it's a ton of work, especially when you realize that _all_ of Alaska's rural towns have data like this or, more often, worse. 

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:23 AM, Brian May <[hidden email]> wrote:
I have spent a very large amount of time cleaning up TIGER in rural areas of Florida. I agree with others that the vast majority of untouched TIGER ways in un-populated rural areas classified as residential are forest roads for logging trucks at best and pure fantasy at worst, with tons of barely grass paths all over the place. Many of these roads are on private lands that you can't (or shouldn't) access anyway. Spatially accuracy is often horrific. I've reviewed a decent amount of 2017 TIGER and many areas have not been fixed. The best secondary source of data I have found are county streets from the county GIS departments, but those vary widely in quality. At the very least the county data shows you where all the forest tracks, farms tracks and imaginary TIGER streets are, because they are not there in the county data sets. Many times, a residential street having no name is a strong tip as well that it is not a residential street.

Kevin, I hear where you are coming from, but I think your case is somewhat unique. Most people aren't going to look at a GPS with OSM data in it, see a bunch of residential roads in a rural un-populated area and think, OK, that must be unedited TIGER, but I know there's a few navigable roads in there somewhere, I just need to find them, record what I found and make some OSM edits. If they know the area, they are going to think this data is junk. If they don't know the area and they head into it they will then figure out pretty quickly the data is junk. I agree with others that these roads should probably not be in OSM at all - let the locals add the real roads and tracks. But we are living with the old TIGER, and there is some potential usefulness that can come from it. So as others have said, we are willing to leave them there, downgrade them to track without a grade assigned for now, maybe make some spatial corrections, delete roads that are obviously pure fantasy, etc.

I don't think there should be any requirement to cover a certain size area when reviewing these areas. We need to be thankful that someone has taken the time to look at even a small area of rural areas that don't get much attention normally at all, especially private lands.

Brian

On 2/12/2018 6:02 PM, Kevin Broderick wrote:
If you can cover an entire area (which I'd define as a swath between the nearest state highways), I agree that downgrading to track absent other clues is one reasonable solution. One of my key points is that anyone who's spent a fair bit of time trying to use GPS maps (of any origin) in poorly-mapped areas will quickly recognize an area that is clearly an unverified TIGER import, which signals both (a) that the data is clearly questionable and (b) that it might be an interesting place to explore to find out if the roads do go through or not. The questionable map data can be very useful, especially in conjunction with other data sources, in attempting to piece together a route through an area that lacks fully maintained roadways. If a track doesn't actually exist, yes, then it should certainly be deleted, but I've ridden right-of-ways that were damn near impossible to see with leaf-on imagery and also found other routes that looked more road-like via the same imagery impassable, so I definitely wouldn't delete anything unless you can get there in person and look for evidence of a roadway, perhaps one that hasn't been maintained in decades (e.g. Class IV roads in Vermont and Class VI roads in New Hampshire).

Downgrading some ways to tracks without doing so to a whole localized network creates the appearance of a higher level of data accuracy than actually exists, which IMO is more likely to bite someone in the ass than having a localized network of roads that are mislabeled. I know it would make some of the exploring I've done via on/off-road motorcycle more difficult.

I'd also suggest that leaving tiger:reviewed at no is appropriate if you haven't been able to travel the road/track in question and determine whether it is really an unclassified road or a track, so it remains flagged for further review if someone has the time and proximity to do so.

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:39 PM, Martijn van Exel <[hidden email]> wrote:
I am very happy to see this rekindled interest in TIGER cleanup!

Having done a fair amount of backcountry exploring, I know that there is a wide range of road grades and aerial imagery alone is not enough to decide how navigable a roads is for a particular type of vehicle. Or, for that matter, what its access limitations are. I do agree with Clifford that leaving them as poorly aligned 'residential' roads is the worst possible situation. Yes, worse than deleting the road altogether. What I usually do is mark the road as track without a track grade tag. This seems to me to be the most acceptable generic solution for a remote mapper: acknowledging that something that could potentially be navigated by a 4 wheeled vehicle exists, without being more specific. Local knowledge can then come to the rescue to upgrade to unclassified if appropriate.

Another note on the MapRoulette side of things: I would very much appreciate your feedback on the new MapRoulette version Clifford linked to. Just email me, join #maproulette on slack, or file an issue at https://github.com/maproulette/maproulette3/issues

Martijn

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Kevin Broderick <[hidden email]> wrote:
Please, please, please don't convert rural roads to tracks based on imagery alone unless it's incredibly clear (and that would exclude anything with forest cover).

While many of them should definitely be unclassified, not residential, downgrading the main rural routes to tracks doesn't match local usage nor the functional topology of the road network in such places. There are a lot of USFS and BLM roads around here that are the only way to access significant areas, that commonly see normal passenger-car traffic and that can be traveled at reasonable speed in a sedan (or at 30+ MPH with a little ground clearance and driving skill),. Having these differentiated from true tracks (where even a stock 4x4 is likely going to be operating at 15 MPH or less) is incredibly helpful for routing and visual use of the map, and it's a lot easier to recognize what I'd call "areas of questionable data" when they haven't been aggressively armchair-mapped. Also, the smoothness key is really helpful for tracks and impossible to map from orthoimagery.


Yes, yes, yes.

In the rural areas that I can travel to readily, TIGER is downright hallucinatory (and there are few enough mappers that cleanup has been agonizingly slow). TIGER has roads in places where no road is, ever was, or even ever could be. (I've seen one going up a series of cliffs totalling about 2000 feet of ascent!) But even in 'leaves down' images, it's nearly impossible to see the forest roads, much less trace them, and there is definitely a wide variation in quality. Some of them are well-compacted sand and shale, that once they've been rolled in the spring, support driving at 30+ MPH. Others, I wouldn't bring my Subaru on. (Although I've been on a few of those in the ancient Ford Explorrer that the Subaru replaced.)  Some are gated, some, you simply have to decide for yourself that they're not drivable.

The 'dirt roads' range from 'highway=path abandoned:highway=track smoothness=impassable' to 'highway=tertiary surface=compacted smoothness=intermediate', with no way for an armchair mapper to tell among them.

The old road maps that they used to give out at gas stations had, on many of these roads, "inquire locally for conditions," which is still good advice. The signage may say, "LIMITED PURPOSE SEASONAL-USE ROAD: No maintenance November 1-April 15" - but in practice, they'll keep it open later in the Autumn unless the snow comes early, and when they open it in the spring depends on when the crews can get it clear - it could be weeks late if there's been a bad washout or rock slide. There's absolutely no way to tag and encode that sort of thing. Inquire locally for conditions.



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





--
Kevin Broderick


_______________________________________________
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




--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

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

Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

Paul Johnson-3
In reply to this post by Brian May


On Feb 12, 2018 19:24, "Brian May" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Kevin, I hear where you are coming from, but I think your case is somewhat unique. Most people aren't going to look at a GPS with OSM data in it, see a bunch of residential roads in a rural un-populated area and think, OK, that must be unedited TIGER, but I know there's a few navigable roads in there somewhere, I just need to find them, record what I found and make some OSM edits. If they know the area, they are going to think this data is junk. If they don't know the area and they head into it they will then figure out pretty quickly the data is junk.

Hindsight being 20/20, it would have been nice if we had picked highway=road as the catchall.

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

Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

Kevin Broderick
In reply to this post by Brian May
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Brian May <[hidden email]> wrote:
...
 
Many times, a residential street having no name is a strong tip as well that it is not a residential street.

Kevin, I hear where you are coming from, but I think your case is somewhat unique. Most people aren't going to look at a GPS with OSM data in it, see a bunch of residential roads in a rural un-populated area and think, OK, that must be unedited TIGER, but I know there's a few navigable roads in there somewhere, I just need to find them, record what I found and make some OSM edits. If they know the area, they are going to think this data is junk. If they don't know the area and they head into it they will then figure out pretty quickly the data is junk. I agree with others that these roads should probably not be in OSM at all - let the locals add the real roads and tracks. But we are living with the old TIGER, and there is some potential usefulness that can come from it. So as others have said, we are willing to leave them there, downgrade them to track without a grade assigned for now, maybe make some spatial corrections, delete roads that are obviously pure fantasy, etc.

I don't think there should be any requirement to cover a certain size area when reviewing these areas. We need to be thankful that someone has taken the time to look at even a small area of rural areas that don't get much attention normally at all, especially private lands.

Perhaps I'm even weirder than I realized ;).

I know that I'm not the *only* one, and yes, it's more of a recognizing bunk data then actually saying, "oh, that's got to be uncorrected TIGER"; I could recognize areas of questionable data on my Garmin well before I got involved in OSM and even knew what TIGER was, and as you noted, "Turn left on Unnamed Road" was one of the warning signs that the route was likely to be interesting (others being minor roads that allegedly go arrow-straight in Vermont for more than half a mile, roads in minimally populated areas that show as higher-grade than the main road connecting two hamlets, etc.).

From what I've seen in both Montana and Vermont, the uncorrected TIGER data generally bears a strong resemblance to *something* on the ground; it does often include long driveways, some private roads, and occasionally paper roads, but in the areas I'm familiar with, a TIGER road usually does have some on-the-ground counterpart, even if many of them are not sedan-friendly. For a lot of reasons, Vermont has very little questionable TIGER left, Montana has a lot more, and I do agree that anyone who can pick away at it is a good thing. I'd still suggest that, whenever possible, modifying a localized road network in one swoop (and thus removing some of the clues that weirdos like me would see as evidence of a good place to explore and a bad shortcut if pressed for time) is helpful and probably less likely to confuse routing engines.
 
--
Kevin Broderick

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

Re: Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

Jack Burke-2
In reply to this post by Mark Wagner
I've been leaving all the TIGER tags and just changing reviewed from no to yes....

The main reason I've been leaving them is I don't know who might want to make use of that information.

-jack

--
Typos courtesy of fancy auto spell technology

On February 13, 2018 5:13:16 AM EST, Mark Wagner <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:25:02 -0800
OSM Volunteer stevea <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Feb 12, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Tod Fitch <[hidden email]> wrote:

Anyway, what is the current best practice dealing with TIGER tags
once the road has been surveyed and corrected? Remove all TIGER
tags or just the reviewed tag?

As I am not familiar with the "things you've read," while also
wondering myself whether additional TIGER tags (tiger:cfcc,
tiger:zip, etc.) should remain or be deleted, I also pose this
question to the greater talk-us community. What DO we do with these
additional TIGER tags as we endeavor to "clean up TIGER" in the USA?
Is there consensus on a definitive "best practice" for removing or
leaving them? (Consensus is clear that we remove tiger:reviewed=no
after we've reviewed the way).

Our wiki https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/TIGER_fixup is silent on this
particular issue (of removing or leaving additional tags). BTW
another wiki of ours, https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/TIGER_Edited_Map
gives a nice overview/documentation of the Ito map.

We might create a new thread or keep it in this one: but even as a
seasoned TIGER cleanup volunteer, I don't know what to do with
additional TIGER tags, and I guarantee everybody reading this that
I'm not alone there!

I find the "tiger:county" tag to be useful as a quick way to figure out
where I am when looking at a changeset or otherwise am zoomed in on the
map while editing. "tiger:zip" would be useful when adding addresses if
I could trust it, but it's wrong too often. The rest of the tags
aren't useful because either they can be derived from the OSM-relevant
tags on the road, or they're wrong/outdated.

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

Re: Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

Martijn van Exel-3
In reply to this post by Kevin Broderick
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Kevin Broderick <[hidden email]> wrote:
...
Downgrading some ways to tracks without doing so to a whole localized network creates the appearance of a higher level of data accuracy than actually exists, which IMO is more likely to bite someone in the ass than having a localized network of roads that are mislabeled. I know it would make some of the exploring I've done via on/off-road motorcycle more difficult.

I'd also suggest that leaving tiger:reviewed at no is appropriate if you haven't been able to travel the road/track in question and determine whether it is really an unclassified road or a track, so it remains flagged for further review if someone has the time and proximity to do so.


Agreed on that point. Leaving reviewed=no in place seems like a sensible approach to avoid the suggestion of higher data accuracy.

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

Re: Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

Kevin Kenny-4
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:06 PM, Martijn van Exel <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> I'd also suggest that leaving tiger:reviewed at no is appropriate if you
>> haven't been able to travel the road/track in question and determine whether
>> it is really an unclassified road or a track, so it remains flagged for
>> further review if someone has the time and proximity to do so.
>>
>
> Agreed on that point. Leaving reviewed=no in place seems like a sensible
> approach to avoid the suggestion of higher data accuracy.

We're unanimous on that part. If you want to try to trace the road, or
change it from 'residential' to 'unclassified' or 'track, I don't mind. But
as I said, in the rural areas around here, it's really impossible to tidy
things up without surveying in person, so the handful of mappers
still need some sort of support for the "things to do" list.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
123