<html><head></head><body>Any source should be double-checked in person, if possible. Even aerial photography may be out of date. I once did research into the history of the neighborhood where my parents were living, and found that for the first twenty years or so after the neighborhood was developed, the city street maps showed the originally-proposed street layout rather than what was actually built.<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">Serge Wroclawski <emacsen@gmail.com> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail">On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Richard Welty <rwelty@averillpark.net> wrote:<br /><br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;">a road name from TIGER 2012 is a much better choice as it avoids the<br />potential issues sourcing a name from Google presents. a ground<br />survey would always be best, of course.</blockquote><br />We should never be sourcing names from Google, ever, but TIGER 2012 is<br />also not a choice one should make without checking, because as we<br />discussed on the import committee meeting last night, some of the<br />names in TIGER are completely wrong.<br /><br />- Serge<br /><br /><hr /><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 /></pre></blockquote></div><br>
-- <br>
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.</body></html>