[Talk-us] Special issues in LA remap
Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.Net
Wed Jun 13 16:47:15 BST 2012
At 2012-06-08 13:49, stevea wrote:
>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),
Not sure what you mean by "ease in" here. It will return much of the area
that was touched by non-agreeing users to TIGER05 state, which is probably
>2) "Nudge nodes to the location where they belong" is smartly next,
>somewhat unspecified as to how/where,
"Nudge" is not the right word. Re-align thousands of ways is more accurate,
and man-years of work.
>3) Perhaps update with TIGER 2011 data in select areas, also unspecified
>as to exactly where.
I only mentioned re-import for areas that were only touched by non-agreeing
contributors, and nobody else, and the idea was to do it before the
redaction, to clean those areas. Thinking about it, though, I guess it
doesn't matter whether it happens before or after redaction for such an area.
I don't find too much value in trying to apply TIGER11 to areas that have
already been surveyed/corrected by people, since, while it's geometry is
better, human alignment to Bing is still better. It also seems to have
newly-introduced errors in it. I recently used it as a reference for Fort
Irwin, CA, and I found there were naming and other errors in TIGER11 that
were not in TIGER05. When trying to use it as a naming reference in other
areas, I've found it not particularly authoritative (i.e. as likely to be
wrong as right when there is a naming conflict among sources).
Alan Mintz <Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.net>
More information about the Talk-us