[Talk-us] Special issues in LA remap

stevea steveaOSM at softworkers.com
Fri Jun 8 21:49:54 BST 2012

>   So, the redaction bot will not completely destroy those areas.  If 
>no one has touched the road alignment since his work, it will just 
>revert back to the original TIGER upload coordinates.  All that is 
>required after the redaction bot will be to nudge the nodes to the 
>location where they belong.
>    A fast preemptive remap for nodes set for redaction-move would be 
>to just move the node to align with current Bing aerial.   Note that 
>the Bing aerial alignment might not be perfect - try to find some 
>GPS tracks in the area to see how close it is.  There should be some 
>tracks on the nearest interstate.

I discern a vague remap plan ordering.  If you can, please sharpen 
this up or correct it if it is outright wrong:

1)  "The redaction bot" (still being written) will do much (to "ease 
in" the license change),
2)  "Nudge nodes to the location where they belong" is smartly next, 
somewhat unspecified as to how/where,
3)  Perhaps update with TIGER 2011 data in select areas, also 
unspecified as to exactly where.

I know that sounds vague and is partially unwritten (which is OK, an 
intention must precede a plan must precede a result).  Please simply 
be more clear:  is that the state of our art right now?  To be clear 
on my part, I include no value judgement about that, I just ask for 
clarification about our process(es).  Are roughly those three steps 
(with others, no doubt) "the plan?"  (OK by me if so, though I 
encourage more dialog about process).

Why ask?  I remain vague how I should prioritize my remap efforts, 
and knowing redaction bot algorithm details helps me sharpen that up, 
I'm pretty sure.  (I am not alone).  Heck, it could also be true that 
work being done in the guts of these steps (does or will) make remap 
efforts less or even not necessary.  If so, a lot of people would 
appreciate seeing those words outright.  Or at least the necessary 
semantics to infer where our efforts are best invested in this 
project.  (We make these judgements for ourselves based upon data, 
preferably excellent data).

Charlotte, are you learning more about how OSM communication works 
(or doesn't, or is difficult for some) via talk-us?  I both am and am 
not.  We can be better.  Wasted effort is a waste, and OSM must 
reduce waste.

In advance of "better answers," thank you for sharing with the 
crystal ball more widely as you might,


More information about the Talk-us mailing list