[Talk-us] What would you want done with TIGER 2010?

Alan Mintz Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.Net
Wed Aug 25 02:27:47 BST 2010

Jumping in at a random point here...

At 2010-08-24 08:48, Anthony wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Antony Pegg <antthelimey at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What would you like to see done (or NOT see done) with TIGER 2010 as 
> regards
> > OSM when it is released?
>Nothing on a grand scale.  A TIGER import into a pretty much blank map
>is a great thing.  A TIGER import into the current OSM, isn't going to

+1. However, I suspect there may be completely untouched areas that could 
be wiped and re-imported from 2010, or at least areas where only the 
interstate or park guys have worked. I do think it's better to let local 
mappers do this work. I've often come across new developments that would 
qualify, where existing rural TIGER roads have all been dozed and the whole 
area redeveloped.

How about a separate database that contains the 2010 data? Add a selector 
to the JOSM download dialog to tell it which database to download from. You 
could then download the area of interest from both databases into separate 
layers and cut/paste connect as needed. This would be better than the 
county-level files proposed earlier, which would be far too big to be 
useful in my area (southern Cal).

>On a smaller scale, I don't know.  Pretty much all the TIGER data I've
>ever seen is surpassed in quality by local county/state data.  So if
>you're going to import county by county, why bother with TIGER?

I'd rather be able to easily fix smaller areas that I'm surveying manually 
than wait for somewhat to tackle my counties of interest. FWIW, TIGER 2009 
was vastly superior to 2006/7 in terms of positioning - very accurate in 
most places I looked. If I had a decent solution for using it, it probably 
would have saved me a lot of the time I spend manually repositioning from 
sat imagery.

Alan Mintz <Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.net>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list