[Talk-us] TIGER 2010 Imports

Alan Mintz Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.Net
Thu Dec 16 13:43:35 GMT 2010


At 2010-12-15 09:52, Mike N. wrote:
>>>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
>>there.
>
>  The exact thing I'm looking for in my area is
>
>1.)   New streets - mostly from new subdivisions.
>2.)  Improved geometry for road centerlines - if and where it exists in TIGER.
>3.)  Updates on road names / other changes I've missed.

+1. When I spot-checked TIGER2009 centerlines for southern California, they 
were almost perfectly aligned with imagery. By comparison, the original 
TIGER (2005?) was pretty far off in most places. I've done a great deal of 
work manually, but I think there are still many places left untouched that 
could benefit from complete replacement. This would be much faster than 
manually aligning those places to imagery, even if it has to be done with 
some sort of manual matching tool.

Let's make sure we have consensus on the directional prefix/suffix issue, 
too. If I recall correctly, TIGER is now rational in this regard, and we 
should make sure we capture what's there.

Is it any better at road-type classifications, or is everything still A41? 
It seems that if an existing TIGER2005 road has been 
reviewed/edited/aligned, but is still highway=residential, and TIGER2010 
has promoted it to a higher class, we should consider doing that. I suspect 
this applies to a lot of the map - particularly the lack of tertiary roads.

--
Alan Mintz <Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.net>




More information about the Talk-us mailing list