County Borders in OpenStreetMap

I have had a fairly steady relationship with county borders in OSM. They were originally imported before I joined the project in 2010. However they were imported as overlapping closed ways which is not ideal. In some places people had started working on de-duplicating the ways and turning them into relations. However this is tedious work and some of the people who attempted it didn't quite understand how relations worked so it was pretty much a big mess.

Throughout 2011 and 2012 I periodically came back and worked on county borders and eventually got to a place where there was a relation for every county in the nation. There are still some minor differences in tagging but I wasn't as concerned with that and tried not to change the work of other mappers as long as the relation existed and had valid geometry. At the same time I also reduced complexity at state borders. There used to be a mess of admin boundary ways. One for the state, one for each of the counties on either side of the state border and possibly also some city boundaries. They usually didn't match up very well either so it looked terrible. I didn't mess with cities but at least I made the state and county borders share a single way to reduce clutter.

At some point I also noticed (thanks to the MapQuest Open rendering which renders county names) that the place=county nodes were all placed at the extreme eastern border of all the counties. This caused the county names to be rendered in unexpected locations. So I ended up fixing those as well. Here is a screenshot of the last changeset where I moved over 1,100 nodes to the middle(ish) of their respective counties:

The Effects

So that was nice. But there was still some weirdness with counties, particularly when geocoding in Nominatim. Especially if there was a city with the same name as a county. For example, I searched for "Kearney, NE" and the first result was the place=county node for Kearney County in Nebraska. What I was looking for and expected to find first was the city of Kearney which is in Buffalo county. Then there is the issue of Nominatim finding both the county node and the boundary relation when you search for a county. The same thing often happens with cities. Really, they are the same thing and should show up as one result. And sometimes it might. Nominatim tries to be smart about this and does remarkably well but sometimes it needs help.

You might say we should just delete the node since we already have the boundary information. But very few renderers use boundary relations to render place names from. They all rely on these nodes. The same goes for cities, states and even countries I believe. There is also the oddness of what to use for county name. The relations all have a "name=Kearney County" tag while the nodes just have "name=Kearney".

After poking around a little and bugging lonvia (maintainer of nominatim.osm.org) about it a couple of times, I learned a few things about Nominatim and was able to make some fixes. It was my intent to come back to this some day and figure it all out and fix up county relations once and for all. I still hadn't gotten around to that but just in the last few days, new user revent was getting annoyed at the geocoding problems in Texas and really dove into Nominatim to figure out the best practices. He wrote up a diary entry on the subject and we have since then talked together some more on IRC and since I had work cancelled today because of snow I thought I would write up this post about my current understanding of things:

• Nominatim is able to "link" multiple elements into a single feature. It tries to do this automatically but doesn't always get it right.
• Nominatim uses Wikipedia to help determine the importance of a place.
• Nominatim makes use of the alt_name tag.
• After editing the map, Nominatim does not always fully reindex an area. It might depend on current workload of the server so things can seem inconsistent. But a manual reindex can be forced by an admin after a large area has undergone a lot of edits.

The linking is important because this allows the county border and the node to be linked into a single feature so that only one result is returned when you search for a particular county. It also improves addressing since Nominatim no longer has to choose between two different things to associate addresses with. This linking can be accomplished by adding the node to the county border relation with a role of "label".

The use of Wikipedia is interesting and (I think) the source of my problems with Kearney, NE that I mentioned above. Nominatim was linking the county node to the Kearney, Nebraska Wikipedia page based on name tag. This helped bump its importance up to where it was returned before the city. Now that I have added the Kearney county node to the Kearney county relation and specified a "wikipedia=en:Kearney County, Nebraska" tag, it links things to the correct Wikipedia page and the search results return the city first, as expected.

The Fix

So to summarize, I believe revent and I have settled on the ideal way to map a county. Using Kearney county as an example:
One relation with the following tags:

type=boundary
boundary=administrative
admin_level=6
name=Kearney County
alt_name=Kearney
wikipedia=en:Kearney County, Nebraska

In addition, the following tags are in widespread use:

border_type=county
nist:state_fips=31
nist:fips_code=31099

I'm not sure the border_type tag is actually used for much but it has a fair amount of existing use and seems to further differentiate borders that are the same admin_level based on local conventions - county vs borough and such. The two nist: tags were part of the import and I have actually used the state_fips as an easy way to download all county relations in a given state to work on. These FIPS codes have been withdrawn by NIST recently but are still commonly used. We may need to look at replacing or augmenting these tags with an ISO standard at some point but for now they work.

In addition to the relation tags the following relation memberships are recommended:

• Obviously the ways that make up the border with a role of "outer" in the correct order so that they form a closed ring
• The node with the following two tags: place=county and name=Kearney with a role of "label"
• The place=city/town node of the county seat with a role of "admin_centre"

The county seat city node as an admin centre (yes, use the British spelling) is kind of a new thing to me. I'm not 100% sold on it but it does seem like useful information to have.

If you have looked at very many county nodes you might notice that the "is_in" tag is conspicuously absent. It turns out, it causes more problems than it solves and should probably be left off or removed. I have always found it a bit silly anyway. OSM is a geodatabase - there is no need to indicate location in a tag.

I have also been promoting any county seats that were place=village to place=town. I know I saw this as a thing on the OSM wiki at one point although I can't find it right now. While they may not meet the population guidelines of a "town" according to the wiki, I think county seats carry extra importance due to their governmental functions. It also means that at least some city names are rendered on maps at low zoom levels in low population areas. Without this promotion you could pan around in the Kansas/Nebraska/Dakotas area for several screens at zoom level 9 or 10 and not see a single city name on the map on osm.org. In some ways this is a rendering issue but I don't feel like this is an egregious case of tagging for the renderer.

Your Turn!

So if you are looking for something to do, jump in and make sure your county is correctly linked and tagged. I have already done Kansas, Nebraska and South Dakota but I probably won't have time to do everything in the near future and I will concentrate on lower population areas first so please feel free to jump in! If there is interest, I may do another post about my workflow to do a state-wide edit. Otherwise you can always find me on the #osm or #osm-us IRC channels if you have questions.

UPDATE! I have since written another post detailing my workflow: http://ksmapper.blogspot.com/2014/02/workflow-for-fixing-county-borders.html

Incidentally, a lot of the same concepts apply to cities as well. If you do a Nominatim search for "Los Angeles, CA" right now it will return two results. One for the node and one for the boundary relation. Making the node a member of the relation should fix that.
(sigh. In doing that search I just saw that the relation for LA is completely broken anyway. Admin boundaries suck.)

In closing, here is a screen shot of the completed county relations in South Dakota:

Remapping using TIGER 2011

The license change mapping process I talked about in my previous post works well where there is still some clean data to go off of and you're just having to redo some work that a decliner did in splitting ways or adding some nodes to refine the geometry. But what about when an entire area is on the chopping block? I present the OSM Inspector view in Glendale, CA:

The area I worked on was just south of here and was actually even worse although I didn't get a "before" screenshot. Less yellow, more red. Here is what it looked like on Simon Poole's "badmap" rendering. Pretty much the entire road network is going to get nuked:

Most of this data is from a single, very prolific contributor who is not likely to agree to the new terms. It is also highly unlikely that anyone in the area is going to be able to redo all of his work before April 1st. So I reached for a bigger paintbrush: TIGER 2011.

License Change Mapping

So far I have avoided saying anything about the OpenStreetMap license change on this blog. It is a very sensitive subject for a lot of people for a million different reasons. This is not a post about how right/wrong the license change is. I personally have agreed to the new terms but then again I don't really care what license my data gets redistributed under. While I prefer (in most situations) a share-alike clause, if we were switching to public domain instead of ODbL, I would probably still agree. Whatever.

But the license change is happening and we must prepare the map for it, ahead of the April 1 cutover date set by the license working group. Today I decided to take a look at what it would take to get I-70 in Kansas cleaned up, license-wise, and thought I'd share my findings. Note that this particular process may or may not apply to other areas. The interstate system is kind of special in that it was imported from a public domain source and has very long stretches that are identical except for tags that don't really matter. This means that there isn't really very much unique or unrecoverable information present. If there is a small section of road (say a bridge) that is dirty, it can just be removed and replaced from clean data that surrounds it plus imagery to verify that it is indeed a bridge. However whenever possible it is preferred to maintain the history of objects in OSM so I don't want to just nuke and replace large sections of I-70. Plus, deleting and recreating ways gets more complicated because of the route relations that they may be a part of.

A majority of I-70 in Kansas is already clean but there is still a noticeable fraction of dirty objects. The goal is to end up with all objects being "clean" to re-license under ODbL. First task: find dirty objects. For this I use the "License Change" view in the OSM inspector tool created by Geofabrik: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe

One Mapper, One Year

Today is the one year anniversary of my first OpenStreetMap edit! I thought I would take the opportunity to reflect on how OSM and myself have had an effect on each other. My intention is not to brag about all the mapping I have done but rather to point out some different ways in which contributions can be made and some of the tools I use when mapping.

My very first edit was to add a foot/bike path near my apartment so that it would show up on OpenCycleMap. Unfortunately the imported TIGER roads were so far off that I had to realign them before I could add the path in the correct location. And of course correcting the ones right around the path led me to correct the ones connecting to those and the ones connecting to those and so on... At the time I didn't even know what TIGER was or what all those tiger:* tags were on all the roads.

Some highlights since then:

• GPS trackpoints uploaded: 283,271 in 75 traces (most from my Garmin Edge 305)
• 410 changesets created using Potlatch, JOSM, OsmAnd and Vespucci
• Pictures taken: over 2,000 (4.5 GB saved)  Most were geotagged to a GPS trace to aid in mapping features (uploaded some of them to openstreetview.org)
• Some of the locations I have edited: 
• My university campus
• My city
• My state
• My country
• My high school
• My childhood home
• Some random place where there was an earthquake
• Map objects affected (according to hdyc.neis-one.org - last updated in January)
• Nodes: about 165,000
• Ways: about 24,500
• Relations: about 500 (I created over 200 county relations in 3 states since the last update)
• Contacted multiple government agencies in Kansas to get explicit permission to use their data to assist in mapping. Documented these data sources on the Kansas page in the wiki
• Started a blog (self referring link!)

Now for a pretty picture. Here are all the GPS traces in my city. I think there may be one or two from other people but most of it is me.

Dual Carriageways

When I first started editing OSM, I was mostly doing residential roads and bike trails. Eventually I worked my way to major roads. Some of them had dual carriageways. In my case these were also US/State highways. Somehow I got the two mixed up in my head and thought that mapping any dual carriageway road required relations. Since I didn't know much about relations at the time I was kind of scared to touch them. Turns out relations ARE used to describe highways however they are not required for dual carriageway roads.

Since I've recently been working on "dualizing" roads in the Kansas City area, I thought I would throw up a quick post about the process. It has probably already been done (I seem to recall a "TIGER fixup" tutorial that described the process) but here is my version.

To Start off with, let's define a dual carriageway road. There may be some difference of opinion (there usually is in OSM) but in general it is any road where the opposing streams of traffic are separated by a physical barrier. A grass median (think interstates) or a strip of trees in the middle of a boulevard are prime examples. Sometimes the barrier is just a small strip of raised pavement or bricks. Regardless, it is something that would make your car go "bump" or even cause damage if you were to try and drive through/over it.

Airports, Part 2

In my first installment of the airport series I presented some basic mapping techniques I used while mapping rural airports in Kansas. One comment I got on IRC suggested using a slightly different tagging scheme for displaced thresholds. The suggestion (I believe it was from pnorman) was to tag it with two tags. One being aeroway=runway and the other being runway=displaced_threshold. While I haven't gone back and changed my previous work, this may be a better way of doing it. First of all, they would get rendered on the default map. I know, I know... "don't tag for the renderer!" But here's the thing: This is technically not incorrect. Displaced thresholds are considered part of the runway and are included when the runway length is specified. So tagging it as a runway but then specifying that it is a specific type of runway is not incorrect tagging. On standard maps it would be rendered as part of the runway but someone making an aeronautical themed map could use the runway=displaced_threshold tag to differentiate it and produce a customized rendering.

Before I go on, I am just going to repost a link to the OSM wiki page for Airports as a reference.

Now on to some new material. I was moving west-to-east through Kansas so the first "big deal" airport I came to was the Salina Municipal Airport. Its 17/35 runway is a massive 12,300 feet (3.8 kilometers) long. Any aircraft currently in service could land here with room to spare. Why does a municipal airport in a city of under 50,000 people in the middle of Kansas have such a massive runway? The military, of course! This facility was built at the beginning of World War II and was used to train heavy bomber crews. Then during the cold war it became part of Strategic Air Command operations until it was closed and turned over to the city of Salina in 1965. (source: wikipedia) Now it serves mostly general aviation but is also used by Kansas State University's aviation program which is based at the Salina campus. A few years ago it was used by Steve Fossett as the start and end point of his solo, nonstop flight around the globe. And I got to bill them for the telecommunications services they used while doing it! (My current day job deals a lot with the telecom billing system at KSU)

I promise, I'll get to the mapping in this post, eventually. But I should point out that this is one thing I love about contributing to OSM. Seeing something unusual in aerial imagery can often lead to an hour spent on wikipedia or a fun discussion on IRC involving people from around the world or, occasionally, a field trip to go see what the heck is happening "on the ground" to cause it to show up a certain way in aerial imagery.

Airports, Part 1

For the past few days I've gone on an airport binge in OpenStreetMap. I ended up learning a lot about airports. It was fun to start mapping, then come across something different or notice a new detail and realizing that this too can be mapped! Here are my musings on the subject. Feel free to tell me I did it all wrong in the comments :)

The recent import of airport nodes from www.ourairports.com and the subsequent discussion sparked the idea to map easily identifiable runways from aerial imagery. So I downloaded all "aeroway=aerodrome" nodes within Kansas from the XAPI. In addition to the above mentioned import, a lot of airports were imported from USGS GNIS (Geographic Names Information System) back in early 2009. In total there were just under 600.

This being Kansas, a vast majority of those 600 "airports" are nothing more than a flat spot in a field where farmer Joe lands his crop duster. They have such names as "Lundgren Hereford Ranch Airport" or "Flying N Ranch Airport." They should probably be downgraded from "aerodrome" to something else and not rendered at zoom level 10 like they are now. Right now looking at western Kansas at z10 reveals a ridiculous number of airports being rendered. I have yet to see any consensus on a tagging scheme for smaller airports so I mostly just ignored them. Additionally, the aerial imagery I was using (USGS NAIP) wasn't really good enough to reliably pinpoint these grass strips in the middle green fields. It also didn't help that the GNIS information is often off by quite a bit so I wasn't sure if the runway was just blending in or if there really wasn't one in the field I was looking at but rather 2 fields over.

The more interesting airports are the municipal air fields. Most of these have a paved runway, sometimes in addition to a grass one. Even small airports stick out when they have a paved runway: