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

[Russ Nelson]

Anthony writes:
 > 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.

Peter, I have to challenge you on this.  *Some* TIGER data needs quite
a bit of cleanup.  *Some* TIGER data is already in good shape, and the
only fixes needed are 1) joining at county borders and 2) unjoining at
bridges.  Just for grins, I looked at Ogdensburg, NY.  Been there a
few dozen times and hadn't done any editing (uploading as I send
this).

Frankly, I see very little that needs correcting, and all the usual
stuff that needs to be added ... which would need to be added without
the TIGER data.  Like footpaths, buildings, POIs.

So yeah, a lot of work above and beyond TIGER.  It's not like there's
a shortage of improvements.  It's ridiculous to claim that the TIGER
import has caused anybody to not edit.  If it has, then we've failed
to explain exactly how wonderful OSM can look when it's "fully"
populated.

 > I signed up for the "USA 'conversion team'" with the express intention
 > of challenging the use of the Karlsruhe schema.

Anthony, what is your design?  How is it better than Karlsruhe?  Is it
in the wiki yet, so the rest of us can see it?

-- 
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241    
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog