Santa Cruz County, California: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
 
==Work to be done in the County==
Many [[TIGER]]-sourced roads in rural, unincorporated Santa Cruz County were entered with or continue to have errors of up to tens of meters. Some are better expressed as {{key|highway|unclassified}} or are actually {{key|highway|track}} (or {{key|highway|service}} + {{key|service|driveway}}) instead of TIGER's default of {{key|highway|residential}}. Additional tags like {{key|barrier|gate}} and {{key|access|private}} are also missing in many locations. Most of these roads are public, some are {{key|access|private}} (it is not always clear which), so it would be very helpful for those with local knowledge of (and access to) these rural roads to gather GPS wanderings and better classify, align and tag them ({{key|highway}}, {{key|access}}, {{key|name}}...). Due to heavy tree cover, this is more true in heavily-wooded, hilly/mountainous areas of central and northern County, and less true in flat, largely treeless, primarily agricultural areas of southern County. [https://product.itoworld.com/map/162?lon=-121.88&lat=37.04&zoom=12&fullscreen=true&open_sidebar=map_key This] displayed how complete we are at reviewing data from the TIGER import: as of 2019, substantially reviewed, but minor TIGER Review is still required, especially in more difficult-to-access areas. While that ITOworld renderer is no longer functional, and no similar visualizer seems extant, the latest strategies for TIGER-cleanup are found at [[TIGER_Edited_Map]]. Some good news is that package-delivery services to quite remote, rural residences often add / update {{tag|service|driveway}} highways to these locations, also better-aligning the residential, tertiary or secondary roads these "root" upon. So, slowly, both better driveways are added (these might benefit from {{tag|access|destination}}) AND their host roads are becoming better aligned, even though these don't always correctly benefit from subsequent removal of their {{tag|tiger:reviewed|no}} tag. TIGER cleanup can be performed in the county with the help of [http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/14HL this] Overpass Turbo query. Note that the relatively urbanized areas of Live Oak, Aptos (especially close to the coast) and Watsonville would benefit from some relatively easy TIGER review (because of existing imagery and lack of tree cover).
 
Certain "holes" in county (zoning or) {{key|landuse}} uploads remain from polygons tagged "special_use" or "public_facility:" these are equivocations from SCCGIS, allowing a lack of specificity defining what {{key|landuse}} these were, so "special_use" conveys "less defined." As previously described, such "special_use" (multi)polygons which are mostly- or all-wooded also may be tagged {{key|natural|wood}}, perhaps with grassland, scrub and buildings superimposed. This worked well for a decade or longer, though newer distinctions among "park," "wood," "forest," "scrub," "grassland," and (especially among already) "landuse" are being better mapped, most importantly by "tag splitting" landcover tags (usually {{tag|natural}}) onto a separate polygon. Also, some otherwise "blank" public_facility polygons (no rendered OSM {{key|landuse}} value) need a site visit to determine what they actually are (e.g., a water_tower facility that should properly be tagged {{key|landuse|industrial}}). Two notable "public_facility" polygons are significant portions of state highway corridors (State Routes 1 and 17).
30,112

edits

Navigation menu