[Talk-us] TIGER 2010 Imports
ian.dees at gmail.com
Wed Dec 15 17:58:14 GMT 2010
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Ian Dees <ian.dees at gmail.com> wrote:
> > First of all, can we agree as a group to hold off on importing or
> > any TIGER 2010 data until we come up with a way to apply changes in a
> > uniform and somewhat organized manner?
> I don't see why TIGER 2010 should be treated differently from any
> other imports. If you have data that you're sure is more accurate
> than what's already there, and are using well-established tags, then
> go ahead and import. If you're not sure if your data is more accurate
> than what's already there, don't import. If you are making up your
> own tags, then talk about it first.
I can't think of any US, national-level imports (other than the original
TIGER import, perhaps) that have gone well. I know because I started or
performed several of them: county borders, NHD, etc. Local-level imports of
data from counties or states are quite a bit easier to deal with, so I'm
proposing we work on getting this national-level one closer to correct.
> > Having said that: let's start a thread here about getting the TIGER data
> > moving along. What steps can we take to move the shapefiles in to OSM
> > format? How can we collaborate on the mapping to OSM tags?
> What is it you want to import from TIGER 2010 in the first place? I'm
> not convinced there's any feasible way to import TIGER 2010 while
> guaranteeing that the import is more accurate than what's already
In the areas I've spot-checked, TIGER 2010 has better resolution and more
road data than untouched TIGER-imported OSM data. I have yet to spot-check
areas that have been edited by OSM members.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us