[Talk-us] Tiger 2007 Data

[Karl Newman]

On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 2:39 AM, Nick Hocking <nick.hocking at gmail.com>wrote:

> I consider that your bulk upload script is in exactly the same boat
> as an automaitc edit script. As such I think that it should adhere
> to the code of conduct for automatic editors, one point of which is
> to respect others' edits.
>
> To me, this means, don't revert or corrupt others' edits.
> To achieve this your script only needs to follow three
> rules.
>
> 1)Do not modify or delete any data unless you are upgrading
>    unmodified tiger data
> 2) Do not place a way if it already exists, unless you are
>    replacing an unmodified tiger way.
> 3) Do not add a way or part thereof if it has been deleted
>     by a user.
>
> Breaking rules 1 or 3 would be, in essence, reverting a user's
> edit. Breaking rule 2 would be corrupting it
>
> If you can manage to make your script follow all three rules
> then I can't see anyone having any problems.
>
> On a more infalmatory note, I checked with yahoo and google
> and it seems that in a LOT or areas more than half of the
> tiger roads don't actually exist. The mappers must have been
> paid by the road :-)
>
> Is tiger 2007 any better in this regard and does it yet have
> dual carriageways for all the interstates?
>
> Nick
>

Well, #2 would be nice but it would be tricky to detect a collision with an
existing way. Frankly, because the first TIGER import was done, the number
of completely new ways that would be added in a new import would be small,
and the number of those ways that conflict with ways added manually by
editors would be even smaller. So, I think it's a small sacrifice to have to
remove a few duplicated roads in exchange for county-wide improved accuracy.

Karl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20081028/37d7aee3/attachment.html>