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

[John Callahan]

For a single county or jurisdiction, if you delete the TIGER data and 
import more accurate local data, what do you do at the boundaries?   
County/Stare data sets I've seen usually get cut off +/- a few hundred 
feet (if that) from the boundary.  Does somebody go through and make 
them fit/connect?  or just leave them be and eventually they'll get fixed.

Listening to the "is TIGER harmful" talk, I for one am glad TIGER was 
imported.  It's obviously poor quality data and I never use it in my own 
work.  However, it was consistent over geography and attributes for the 
whole country.   Also, there's much less of a barrier to move a road to 
the right place then to create new ones.  Of course, maybe you don't 
want mappers you don't really understand the OSM scheme.

 From my own experience, with some data there (TIGER or otherwise), I 
was able to get OSM noticed by several of my colleagues, even if the 
data was not great.  If there were mostly blank areas, they never would 
have looked twice.  I tend to agree that "imports damage the growth of 
the editor community."  However, IMO this one-time import got a whole 
lot of people to start using OSM in the US.

If the goal is to reach the widest possible audience (by that I mean 
mappers AND users) than the TIGER import was a good idea.  If the goal 
is get the most accurate data, regardless of how long it takes, then the 
import probably shouldn't have taken place.  If the goal is simply to 
have fun, then it doesn't really matter, just play with what's there. :-)


- John



Kate Chapman wrote:
> Dan,
>
> Alexandria gave us permission to import their data but still wanted  
> the 100 dollar CD fee. Someone paid that and we do have the data.
>
> As far as I know nobody has asked Fairfax County, but I figured making  
> D.C. look nice with a combination of mapping and importing would be a  
> strong tool when asking other jurisdictions for data. After importing  
> the DC data we were going to make a strong push to ask others.  One  
> thing we've been trying to do is have residents of those counties/ 
> cities ask about importing data.  I live in Loudoun County and have  
> been discussing with them the possibly obtaining their data as well.
>
> A lot of local jurisdictions seem interested I think more than  
> anything they just need to be approached in the right way.
>
> Kate
>
>
> On Nov 15, 2009, at 6:50 PM, Dan Putler <dan.putler at sauder.ubc.ca>  
> wrote:
>
>   
>> Hi Kate,
>>
>> Sounds good. My guess is that the data from the District is based on  
>> the
>> assessor parcels. Given what you said (I'm assuming you are in the
>> Northern VA suburbs of DC), have you looked into whether Fairfax  
>> County
>> or Alexandria has released their parcel or centerline road data?
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 18:43 -0500, Kate Chapman wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi Dan,
>>>
>>> Both manual and donated data.  I've been addressing my neighborhood  
>>> in
>>> Virginia but Washington D.C. donated point level addresses.
>>>
>>> Kate Chapman
>>>
>>> On Nov 15, 2009, at 6:37 PM, Dan Putler <dan.putler at sauder.ubc.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Hi Kate,
>>>>
>>>> How have the address points been obtained? From OSM users? The  
>>>> Census
>>>> Bureau has collected and created a national data set of them in
>>>> preparation for the 2010 Census, but for non-disclosure reasons,  
>>>> they
>>>> have no intention of releasing them to the public. The next possible
>>>> public source of this type of information would be based on county
>>>> assessor parcel data, but that is limited to those counties that  
>>>> have
>>>> released their parcel data (although, counties that have released
>>>> address ranged centerline street data also tend to be the same ones
>>>> who
>>>> released their parcel data).
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 18:28 -0500, Kate Chapman wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> Dave,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Understood, I would envision it being a partially manual and
>>>>> partially
>>>>> automated process.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe I'm confused about the address versus road information.  I
>>>>> would
>>>>> think the address point would be the front door of the building and
>>>>> would not be a relation to the road.  So the node of the address  
>>>>> and
>>>>> the way of the road would not be on top of each other.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this incorrect?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Kate Chapman
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>        We also
>>>>>       need to ensure that we *find* the roads to which it refers to
>>>>>       ensure
>>>>>       that we get the relations done properly.
>>>>>
>>>>>       If people find a way to do that, it shouldn't be a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Or are you just referring to not importing the addressing
>>>>>>             
>>>>>       that is
>>>>>           
>>>>>> available for the Tiger data?
>>>>>>             
>>>>>       -- Dave
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> -- 
>>>> Dan Putler
>>>> Sauder School of Business
>>>> University of British Columbia
>>>>
>>>>         
>> -- 
>> Dan Putler
>> Sauder School of Business
>> University of British Columbia
>>
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imports mailing list
> Imports at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20091115/aef36af0/attachment.html>