[Imports-us] A proposal for handling the tiger realignment

Jason Remillard remillard.jason at gmail.com
Fri Aug 9 17:13:02 UTC 2013


I Agree. Some areas should be entirely skipped, some should be merged
by hand, and some should be fully automated. Perhaps we could have
people sign up to take specific counties for hand merging, or that
should be excluded. Anything left over is a candidate for a fully
automated import.

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Serge Wroclawski <emacsen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been thinking about the TIGER realignment.
>
> We've seen some incredible work by Eric, not only in providing new
> TIGER data, but that aligns with current TIGER data, and furthermore,
> that optimizes for the lowest impact possible on OSM for an update.
>
> We've also seen some problems with the script, mostly having to do with
>
> And we've seen a real interest by the community on having human being
> currate imports. That's a change in how the community interacts with
> imports, and I think has a lot of value on a lot of fronts.
>
> The bottom line is that it would be extremely difficult to do the
> entire US by hand, either by tracing, or even by a review process
> aided by a tool. The sheer size of the task would mean that people
> would be spending an enormous amount of time doing this review.
>
> Luckily for us, the area which have had the least attention are also
> the least populated (based on Green Means Go), meaning that the TIGER
> update has a large geographic impact, but a low population impact,
> which we can turn to our advantage.
>
> What that means is that we can create a metric of OSM activity in an
> area, and by doing that, decide whether or not the area should have an
> automated import process, or a manual review process.
>
> For area which have had little/no mapping, the TIGER update will do no
> harm. It will be, essentially, as if the TIGER import had been done in
> 2011 (using 2010 data)[1].
>
> For the area which are of high population (low on the Green Means Go
> measurement), we'll want some kind of manual review process, both to
> ensure some quality assurance, but also as a vehicle to bring the
> community together.
>
> What do people think?
>
> - Serge
>
> [1] This is not entirely accurate, since the TIGER update process
> proposed does not add new roads, only update existing roads, but I'm
> trying not to split hairs.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imports-us mailing list
> Imports-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports-us



More information about the Imports-us mailing list