[Talk-us] US Addressing

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Ian Dees <ian.dees at gmail.com> wrote:

> I really don't want to support a complete TIGER address import unless our
> effort at finding "real" local addressing data fails in some places.

I believe that Richard was speaking about TIGER in the sense of the
style of import, rather than about the dataset itself.

The issues around TIGER were that it gave us a boost initially, but
we've been also dealing with the consequences of that import for
years, and I think Richard is suggesting that we consider our actions
carefully.

> Just about all the data I've seen is unexpanded. We'll probably have to deal
> with that on a per-county basis (assuming we're not importing TIGER).

Yes, but it's an excellent point- one that should go along with any data import.


More than that, I'd like to see the imports follow a process (one
which I was writing up about the TIGER expansion), but here's the
rough outline:

1. Initial announcement of interest (I'd like to do ___ and either I
have the script or data to do so). Ask the community if there's
interest/objections.
(have some waiting/feedback period)
2. If there's interest and no serious objections, post the data files
and scripts for testing.
(have some waiting/feedback period)
3. Have a formal code review (as we're doing tonight for the TIGER
expansion bot).
4. Have a "last call.
(have a waiting/patch subimission period)
5. Do the automated edit process.

- Serge