[Talk-us] TIGER 2010 Imports
ian.dees at gmail.com
Wed Dec 15 18:04:37 GMT 2010
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Ian Dees <ian.dees at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >> > applying
> >> > 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.
> That seems to me like a good argument *against* importing TIGER in a
> uniform and somewhat organized manner.
I disagree. The point was that previous imports have not been organized or
uniform at all which helped lead to their failure. The original TIGER import
was the closest, probably.
> > In the areas I've spot-checked, TIGER 2010 has better resolution and more
> > road data than untouched TIGER-imported OSM data.
> How much of that is there, anyway?
Look at the TIGER edited map. There is *lots* of untouched TIGER data in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us