[Imports] [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] TIGER considered harmful

[Dave Hansen]

On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 18:54 -0500, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Dave Hansen <dave at sr71.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 18:11 -0500, Kate Chapman wrote:
> >> What's wrong with doing automated addressing imports in situations
> >> where we have point level address data?
> >
> > The issue is that it may not line up with the roads at all.
> 
> Well, address locations don't always line up with roads.  That's not a
> bug, that's a feature.  Though I suspect you mean something else, and
> I'm not sure quite what it is.

There's nothing wrong with doing point-level address imports.  The only
thing I would suggest is ensuring that we connect those points ways or
whatever to the roads that represent them somehow.  One way to do that
is relations.  They ensure that you can't, for instance, delete the road
without also considering how deleting the road might affect addresses on
that stretch of road.

> > We also
> > need to ensure that we *find* the roads to which it refers to ensure
> > that we get the relations done properly.
> 
> There's no need for relations, which I would think you'd be aware of,
> since you're not using relations with your TIGER address import

I'm not done yet. :)

-- Dave