[Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Your opinion about SOTM US

[Brian May]

On 3/15/2015 8:53 AM, Clifford Snow wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Alex Barth <alex at mapbox.com 
> <mailto:alex at mapbox.com>> wrote:
>
>     Here's a map showing where TIGER is better than OSM:
>     https://api.tiles.mapbox.com/v4/lxbarth.647bc246/page.html?access_token=pk.eyJ1IjoibHhiYXJ0aCIsImEiOiJFVXdYcUlvIn0.bbaHTEWlnAwGgyVwJngMdQ#5/39.724/-99.360
>
>
> I think the correct phrase is "Here's a map showing where TIGER is 
> different than OSM." Just because new TIGER data is available, doesn't 
> make it better. In my limited experience with just small parts of two 
> states, new TIGER data in rural areas is often bad.
>
> Clifford
>
>
> -- 
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us <http://osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us>
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>

So the yellow is where tiger 2013 is better? In a few areas I checked 
and had updated OSM, its much worse than OSM. And as Clifford notes, in 
many rural counties, new tiger is no better than old tiger, or its 
marginally better than old tiger. In a few cases, a county has seen a 
decent upgrade in quality with newer tiger, but seems to be a small 
minority of cases where I look which is Florida.

And then there is the issue of areas where OSM has not been edited much 
and the original tiger is mostly the same as the new tiger, so there's 
not much yellow. You can see vast swatchs of this in Alabama, Georgia 
and NW Florida - and it lines up to county lines.

Overall, I think the map is somewhat misleading.

Brian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150315/a3e0be00/attachment.html>