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

Eric Fischer enf at pobox.com
Fri Aug 9 19:04:56 UTC 2013


I'm doing a terrible job trying to reply to this from my phone. I'll give
you some concrete examples of conflicts at the joins once I am back at a
real computer later today.

Eric
On Aug 9, 2013 10:45 AM, "alex at mapbox.com" <alex at mapbox.com> wrote:

> > since there is no information then about how those two relate.
>
> Can you expand on this?
>
>
> http://twitter.com/lxbarth
>
> On Aug 9, 2013, at 1:27 PM, Eric Fischer <enf at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> It doesn't move any nodes that anyone else has moved. The tricky part is
> the edges where one point has been moved and TIGER wants to move an
> adjacent point, since there is no information then about how those two
> relate.
>
> Eric
> On Aug 9, 2013 10:22 AM, "Alex Barth" <alex at mapbox.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Serge Wroclawski <emacsen at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Ccorrect me if I'm wrong (eric fischer) - isn't that what the automated
>> script inherently does by only touching nodes that haven't been touched by
>> contributors?
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Imports-us mailing list
>> Imports-us at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports-us
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports-us/attachments/20130809/158eb97a/attachment.html>


More information about the Imports-us mailing list