<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7036.0">
<TITLE>RE: [Talk-us] tiger:review=yes</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> > On a related topic... We are assuming that some portion of tiger data <BR>
> > may never be edited as it is correct.., any feelings on how much this <BR>
> >is, or how to detect it? One approach we are considering is to see it <BR>
> >a road has pois along it... If so it is probably ok, I'd love other <BR>
> > ideas.<BR>
<BR>
> Well, I think that was the point of the "tiger:reviewed=yes" tag.<BR>
> Perhaps the procedure should be to delete the tiger:reviewed tag when you review a way? Absence == yes.<BR>
<BR>
Absence of tiger:reviewed means "==yes" makes perfect sense to be sure... <BR>
<BR>
Interestingly, I think that the act of setting the reviewed=yes will update the last edit date (and the userid), and so filtering on that first will catch edited roads where the tag was left... <BR>
<BR>
I guess what I'm trying to get a handle on is, how much of the tiger data do we think will never be edited at all, because it is good and correct already (is it a vanishingly small percentage? Or significant... Probably depends on the county or state and how good their source data was prior to being combined)... <BR>
<BR>
One thing that could be interesting to put up is to do a map style with un-edited tiger data shown in highlight (like our no-names map) and then add the ability to let the viewer validate it, or specific portions of it, as being correct. <BR>
<BR>
To do the style we could filter on tiger:reviewed, userid and date and possibly show<BR>
<BR>
Base Case of cannot be tiger is (Not Dave H and/or last_edit not between Nov 2007 and Feb 2008) -> good<BR>
reviewed=yes -> good... <BR>
Reviewed=not present -> good... <BR>
Reviewed=No -> suspect bad, needs to be reviewed<BR>
<BR>
Probably needs the open auth features of api 0.6 to do it right, (or running it on OSM itself). Should be pretty easy to develop the style and tiles however.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
j<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: talk-us-bounces@openstreetmap.org [<A HREF="mailto:talk-us-bounces@openstreetmap.org">mailto:talk-us-bounces@openstreetmap.org</A>] On Behalf Of Russ Nelson<BR>
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 6:42 PM<BR>
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org<BR>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] tiger:review=yes<BR>
<BR>
jim@cloudmade.com writes:<BR>
> One thing that would help a lot is if massive batch imports (tiger, > mass gis etc) can each use a userid specific to the load. Then > identifying un edited data it is simple as any edit changes the userid.<BR>
<BR>
Absolutely.<BR>
<BR>
> On a related topic... We are asuming that some portion of tiger data > may never be edited as it is correct.., any feelings on how much this > is, or how to detect it? One approach we sre consisering is to see it > a road has pois along it... If so it is probably ok, I'd love other > ideas.<BR>
<BR>
Well, I think that was the point of the "tiger:reviewed=yes" tag.<BR>
Perhaps the procedure should be to delete the tiger:reviewed tag when you review a way? Absence == yes.<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
--my blog is at <A HREF="http://blog.russnelson.com">http://blog.russnelson.com</A> | Delegislation is a slippery<BR>
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | slope to prosperity.<BR>
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 | Fewer laws, more freedom.<BR>
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog | (Not a GOP supporter).<BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
Talk-us mailing list<BR>
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</A><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3649 (20081128) __________<BR>
<BR>
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.eset.com">http://www.eset.com</A><BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>