[Talk-us] Address improvement through imports?

Martijn van Exel m at rtijn.org
Wed Nov 2 16:17:35 GMT 2011


On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Ian Dees <ian.dees at gmail.com> wrote:


> Address range information can be derived from existing TIGER data quite
> simply.
> However, I would argue that we should only talk about importing point
> information for two reasons:
> 1) address ranges get in the way of editing existing TIGER features (to
> align a road you also have to align the two address range ways on either
> side)

I agree that for *imports* we should only be looking at point data.
Importing ranges means having to match external data to OSM ways which
seems like a world of pain to me. Even if TIGER ids are permanent (are
they?) TIGER tags could have been removed, ways merged or split.. Let
alone merging ranges from other external data where you would have to
match by name (ouch!) or geometry (also ouch!).

For mapping, I'd say anything that people are willing to contribute is good.

> 2) address ranges are difficult to improve (if I wanted to map a single
> address after a photo map trip, I would have to split the existing address
> range way into constituent parts)
> ...whereas point addresses (even if we generate them artificially from TIGER
> address ranges) can easily be moved to their correct location without
> modifying complex way geometries. Their tags can be copied on to nearby
> buildings quickly and easily.

Generating individual addresses from TIGER ranges means adding a layer
of inaccuracy on top of a dataset that is already of sketchy quality
to begin with, isn't it?

martijn van exel
geospatial omnivore
1109 1st ave #2
salt lake city, ut 84103

More information about the Talk-us mailing list