[Talk-us] Special issues in LA remap

Alan Mintz 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 
pretty bad.


>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 mailing list