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

SteveC steve at asklater.com
Mon Nov 16 02:40:23 GMT 2009


I suspect the Karlsruhe schema is a bit like the license change. Everyone thinks they have a better idea, and it will take 3 weeks of back and forth to go over it before they figure out that it's the best (or, least worst) way forward... but by then another 3 people who need convincing pop up.... then 9 then 27... until you reach the tail off of the s-curve.


On Nov 15, 2009, at 5:52 PM, Anthony wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Peter Batty <peter.batty at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm coming a bit late to this debate, but I just wanted to raise a fairly
>> basic question, which is whether the Karlsruhe schema is the best one to use
>> in the situation we find ourselves in with TIGER, where quite a bit of data
>> cleanup is anticipated.
> 
> I signed up for the "USA 'conversion team'" with the express intention
> of challenging the use of the Karlsruhe schema.  Maybe you can sign up
> too (even if you're not in the US).
> 
>> The main challenge with
>> maintaining this format, as Frederik and others pointed out, is if you split
>> or join a way. But it's relatively easy to put logic in editors to handle
>> that, and even if you have to do it manually, it seems to me easier to
>> maintain this model than the more precise Karlsruhe schema if you are doing
>> quite a bit of data cleanup.
> 
> The TIGER data has already been significantly degraded from people
> doing just this type of thing.  The problem is, if a way goes from 2
> to 100, and you want to split it in the middle (say, due to a change
> in the number of lanes), you have to either resurvey the addresses or
> take a shot in the dark and split it 2-48, 50-100.  That might be
> reasonable if the 2-100 were accurate in the first place, but if that
> 2-100 were really 2-20, you've seriously screwed things up.  The TIGER
> data already contains large numbers of instances of exactly this, but
> there's no sense introducing a schema which makes this even worse.
> 
> On the other hand, there are other possibilities which avoid this
> problem and also avoid creating multiple ways.  Join the conversion
> team with me and we can talk about them.
> 
>> So this is not an either / or proposal of course - both forms could exist,
>> and you search for the more precise form before the more approximate form.
> 
> As much as I hate the meme of saying +1 when you agree with someone, I
> have to say +1.  Or maybe "AMEN".
> 
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Dale Puch <dale.puch at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I personally favor having the possible address range in the street way
>> segment (between intersections)
> 
> Join the team!
> 
> Anthony
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Imports mailing list
> Imports at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
> 

Yours &c.

Steve





More information about the Imports mailing list