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

[Eric Fischer]

I think you're right that in areas where people are willing to do manual
review, it should be very aggressive about picking up absolutely everything
that can be picked up and letting the reviewer fix the parts that are
wrong. (But if JOSM isn't a good tool for that kind of review, what is?)

Do you have a good sense for what minimum size (either in area or nodes) an
unedited area should be in order to be a candidate for automatic
realignment without review?

Eric

On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Bryce Nesbitt <bryce2 at obviously.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 10:19 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.
>>>
>>
>> Correct 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?
>>
>
> Even in the best mapped areas, by luck, there are a few nodes that never
> got moved (even tiger typewriter monkeys can occasionally place a node
> correctly ).  Thus you'll see little splotches of new tiger 2010 data kinda
> all over.
>
> The proposal on the table is that, perhaps, well mapped regions should be
> left alone.
> In the remaining areas, the Tiger refresh could then be even
> more aggressive, perhaps even adding new nodes and metadata.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130810/fdb8faaa/attachment.html>