[Talk-us] TIGER fixup and mapping "more"

Mike N niceman at att.net
Thu Jul 12 16:57:42 BST 2012


On 7/12/2012 11:26 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I like that idea, especially given the high number of obviously not
> urban roads that would be better off tagged as track or unclassified
> getting counted as residential (a more urban classification).  I'd be
> willing to extend this idea to any way tagged tiger:reviewed=no still,
> regardless of version number.

This seems like pointing a sledge hammer at an anthill.  We would 
actually consider changing 99% of the roads, some of which have been 
reviewed for name, type, and alignment but not for distance (I have done 
many of these), just to address a 1% problem?

   It's a big problem at the edge of rural areas, but these should be 
surveyed firsthand or corrected by better public records.   The outer 
rural tracks change faster than normal highways by becoming abandoned 
and overgrown.

   A few of the TIGER roads were correctly set as 'track' by the source. 
   If we're saying it's to prevent incorrect routing, the result will 
either be that everything becomes un-routable until corrected, or that 
the same routing geometry and problems will still apply.

   Even limiting the changes to A4* is still too broad.   Others will be 
tempted to go back and undo the change with bots.



More information about the Talk-us mailing list