[Talk-us] Address improvement through imports?
ian.dees at gmail.com
Wed Nov 2 16:18:01 GMT 2011
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Ian Dees <ian.dees at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Address range information can be derived from existing TIGER data quite
> > simply.
> I'm not sure how simple it is. It's simple in cases where TIGER data
> matches up very closely with OSM data. But that isn't universally
> true. And where it doesn't match up very closely, chances are high
> that the TIGER data is out of date or incorrect.
> Which brings me to the conclusion that there's no point in importing
> TIGER address information. A geocoder can simply try to find the
> address in OSM, and fall back to TIGER if the address isn't in OSM.
> Then, once the lat/lon is obtained (possibly from the external TIGER
> database), it can simply pass the lat/lon back into OSM for routing
> purposes (possibly along with a warning that TIGER data was used,
> which is quite likely to be be out of date and/or inaccurate.
I agree. I don't think we should import TIGER anything at this point. The
previous e-mail was just pointing out that we don't need to derive address
range data from anything because we have relatively accurate address data
in TIGER -- at least more accurate than what we'd get from deriving from
But we shouldn't import TIGER addresses. We should be looking for county-
or state-wide address points that we can convert to OSM format and merge
into existing data nicely.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us