<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/15/2015 8:53 AM, Clifford Snow
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADAoPLox-=qMbJ4wSPV8AwydcLF0uPy5sN6KZKeXQDMNoFEguA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Alex
Barth <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:alex@mapbox.com" target="_blank">alex@mapbox.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_extra">Here's a map showing where TIGER
is better than OSM:</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://api.tiles.mapbox.com/v4/lxbarth.647bc246/page.html?access_token=pk.eyJ1IjoibHhiYXJ0aCIsImEiOiJFVXdYcUlvIn0.bbaHTEWlnAwGgyVwJngMdQ#5/39.724/-99.360"
target="_blank">https://api.tiles.mapbox.com/v4/lxbarth.647bc246/page.html?access_token=pk.eyJ1IjoibHhiYXJ0aCIsImEiOiJFVXdYcUlvIn0.bbaHTEWlnAwGgyVwJngMdQ#5/39.724/-99.360</a></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
I think the correct phrase is "Here's a map showing where
TIGER is different than OSM." Just because new TIGER data is
available, doesn't make it better. In my limited experience
with just small parts of two states, new TIGER data in rural
areas is often bad. </div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Clifford<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>@osm_seattle<br>
</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us"
target="_blank">osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us</a></div>
<div>OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
So the yellow is where tiger 2013 is better? In a few areas I
checked and had updated OSM, its much worse than OSM. And as
Clifford notes, in many rural counties, new tiger is no better than
old tiger, or its marginally better than old tiger. In a few cases,
a county has seen a decent upgrade in quality with newer tiger, but
seems to be a small minority of cases where I look which is Florida.
<br>
<br>
And then there is the issue of areas where OSM has not been edited
much and the original tiger is mostly the same as the new tiger, so
there's not much yellow. You can see vast swatchs of this in
Alabama, Georgia and NW Florida - and it lines up to county lines.<br>
<br>
Overall, I think the map is somewhat misleading.<br>
<br>
Brian<br>
</body>
</html>