Announcing TIGERMap - tiger:reviewed=no

All good. I have been meaning to make that information more apparent on the site itself. This is another good nudge.

@watmildon I tried to use your filter function to get only highways highlighted. But somehow either I’m using it wrong or it’s not working as intended. E.g., TIGERMap still showing the railway, also power lines are still “black”.

1 Like

Doh! Thanks for letting me know. I rewrote all of the filter stuff for WAMap and botched the copy/paste into TIGERMap. The filters were never being set. I have pushed a fix and it looks like it is deployed.


Awesome, that was quick! Now the filter is working for me. :+1:

1 Like

A bit late to the party, but USDOT PHMSA has a public map viewer app for pipeline data. It’s a bit clunky and prevents you from zooming in too far, but it’s more authoritative than TIGER, and I used it pretty heavily over the last few months to identify pipelines and improve their routings in OSM. I’ll try to write a more detailed guide shortly, though I encourage anyone interested in pipeline mapping to play around with it.


Oh that is super lovely! Is that documented on the wiki or elsewhere? I’d love to point the “info” link in the drop down to some place that includes that kind of stuff.

Maybe we need a “tiger pipeline” page like we have for rails…

In lieu of something better I have added a link to your comment :wink:

1 Like

I couldn’t find much documentation on it, so here’s a diary entry :slight_smile:


Some TIGERMap updates…

  • Add a power layer - need to find a good “how to review” write up
  • The backing tiles now have all items with tiger:reviewed so you can now see tiger:reviewed=aerial by using the filter box
  • The backing tiles also now have OSM metadata so you can do a filter like highway;@version<=3. The fields are @id, @version, @timestamp, @type
  • Puerto Rico has been added
  • There is now a county boundary overlay

Thanks to everyone who posted and is using the site. Let me know if there’s anything else you’d like to see. Shout out to @Matt who has been a great contributor to various things listed above.


I can write something about reviewing power lines. I know a lot about electricity and used to work for a power company, and I’ve reviewed a lot of them in the area where I live.
Give me the weekend to get it written, though. I don’t want to try to do it now while I’m tired on a Friday evening.


That would be lovely. It’s also totally possible I have missed an existing doc. Happy to link to whatever we think is something reasonable.

Obviously I forgot to add Puerto Rico information to the addr:street layer. I will add that now and it will be generated when the next run happens.

I suppose I also need something to augment the “county” layer… Maybe this is overkill? Municipalities of Puerto Rico - Wikipedia

Yes, Municipios are the county-equivalents of Puerto Rico. There may be no TIGER pipelines on the island, but for what it’s worth, the NPMS Public Viewer divides Puerto Rico this way.


Clay and I see very eye-to-eye on a great many things, especially (and including, as that is the only context in which I know him) OSM! I have enjoyed and do enjoy much collaboration with him.

In this particular context, I’d like to ask that people be careful and perhaps sharpen focus (in an OSM-specific way) as to what is meant by “county equivalent.” This is a widely-abused term, especially by our Department of Commerce’s Census Bureau, who clearly loves to make as many things as possible “equivalent” when that’s not the right word. Maybe “at a similar level of political / administrative hierarchy,” is more precise, and happily (though, sometimes fuzzily), OSM has admin_level for that.

It’s true that an admin_level=6 is called a “county” in 48 states (Alaska has “divisions” and Louisiana has “parishes”) and in the territories and commonwealths (non-states) of the USA, these are known as “municipalities” (different than the usually-admin_level=8 cities and towns in states which are often known as municipalities, especially because they are incorporated).

So a municipio in Puerto Rico is indeed admin_level=6 as counties are. But as we see, a municipio is not really the same thing as a county (or a parish, or a division) nor is it equivalent in any sense to an “unorganized atoll” in American Samoa, a “village” in Guam, a “district” in the US Virgin Islands and so on: these are all admin_level=6 municipalities (in the non-state sense) as well. The word “equivalent” is putting it too strongly. The phrase “at a similar level in a hierarchy” (of political administration) is, let’s say, more correct.

I’ve noticed a trend with these subjects and it bears repeating: the Census Bureau really likes to categorize things into “sorta like each other” categories (it calls “equivalents”). While OSM, rather, seems to want to be more precise with “what something actually is.” Our tagging reflects this, our language should too, and when colloquialisms of blurred lines get tossed about without realizing that some precision of definition goes along with the cavalier semantics of flattening into “equivalents,” well, we (OSM) lose something. Let’s be careful not to lose semantic distinctions.

As nailing this gelatin to the wall has its difficulties, I’ll leave it at that. Thanks for reading.


I hear you loud and clear. FWIW, the original ask for “county” overlay was from someone who was using the boundaries as a sort of rough task manager. My philosophy (that sounds overly serious) for the various overlay is:

  1. Help folks find areas amenable to tiger mapping (addr:street, NAD)
  2. Inspire targeted work based off of other criteria (redlines, eclipse 2024 etc)

I can totally see municipio serving the second purpose but definitely don’t want to incidentally conflate different ideas together without more clear verbiage. I’ll leave them off for now and work on it more if someone pings me about it.

What I said is not really meant to be a “stop work request,” rather a “heads-up, it’s easy to call something a ‘county equivalent’ when admin_level=6 (in a USA context, as TIGER is) might be exactly the right way to say it.” So, I’d like to see this, just please don’t call everything counties like the Census Bureau does. Calling them admin_level=6, please think about it, I think that’d be nice: it works correctly and precisely for counties, parishes, divisions, municipios, unorganized atolls, et cetera.

I’m saying, "from the state, territory or commonwealth level (admin_level=4) down, admin_level=6 is a nice “next level down in the hierarchy for further granulation.” And we document (so we know) what we mean by that, and it’s correct. So, we might as well use it. Thanks for your consideration to add this feature, I think it’s great.

(There are some rare instances of admin_level=5: New York City, Tennessee’s Divisions… but because 5 IS so rare, 6 is a better choice for “the next one down.”)

Edit: And BTW, thanks again for this tool, I’m already using it maybe once a week to take a look at things and clean up here and there.

1 Like

I’m making progress in central Ohio :slight_smile: