[Talk-us] Updating unchanged TIGER imports to TIGER 2013

Eric Fischer enf at pobox.com
Wed Mar 13 01:32:50 UTC 2013


Thanks for the helpful comments. At least anecdotally, I think I have
actually seen the TIGER merge lead to more anomalies in gridded areas than
in hills, maybe because people feel more comfortable making minor edits to
mostly-regular grids.

I completely agree that any new ways imported from TIGER will have to be
reviewed manually, if for no other reason because they generally don't
connect to any existing node.

I am intending to produce the additions and adjustments as separate .osc
files that can be examined for correctness in JOSM before being applied.
Would people generally be comfortable with accepting node relocations that
don't cause any ways to overlap themselves without extensive manual review,
and only carefully reviewing additions?

Eric

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Richard Welty <rwelty at averillpark.net>wrote:

> On 3/12/13 5:00 PM, Mike N wrote:
>
>> On 3/11/2013 10:10 PM, Eric Fischer wrote:
>>
>>   The results of application will depend on both the original data and
>> the 2012 data.  For layouts with 'regular geometry' - roughly square,
>> rectangular, or rhomboid layouts, the results will be generally good. For
>> curved roads with poor original TIGER geometry, I would expect the result
>> to be very irregular without manual correction.   I've seen this type of
>> road network in very hilly or mountainous areas.
>>
>>  this level of mis-alignment is common in Upstate NY:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?**lat=43.51916&lon=-73.6955&**
> zoom=15&layers=M<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.51916&lon=-73.6955&zoom=15&layers=M>
>
> the example is from Warren County. i've seen worse in West Virginia and
> Arizona.
>
>
>  Ideally, all the new street data should be reviewed before bringing it
>> in; depending on the origin, most of it needs to have the alignment tweaked
>> and connectivity verified against Bing Aerials.
>>
>>   It would be nice to be able to view the results in JOSM before
>> uploading them, even if another tool is used for upload; I'm not sure how
>> to do that.
>>
> if the results are in an osm xml format, then JOSM can just load it up.
>
> i like the idea, but there needs to be a manual quality control step so we
> don't make
> things worse while trying to make them better.
>
> richard
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-us<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20130312/5167401b/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list