[Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Richard Welty]

On 6/2/16 4:59 PM, Madeline Steele wrote:
>
> The approach that is preferred at TriMet (where I work) is that if we
> are able to check the geometry of the street against fairly recent
> imagery (improving it if needed) and verify the name of the street,
> from either our local jurisdictional centerlines or the latest TIGER
> TMS layer, then we remove all of the TIGER tags. We see that as being
> adequate to remove the TIGER:reviewed tag (especially when multiple
> mappers have edited the way since the initial import, which is
> typical). We think that the other TIGER tags are not needed as they’re
> mostly comprised of information that isn’t really appropriate for the
> street ways (zip code and county, which take up less space and are
> easier to keep up-to-date when maintained as separate boundary
> polygons) and attributes that can be derived from other fields (e.g.,
> prefix, basename, suffix). While it could be handy to have these
> address components broken out, it adds bulk and requires updating
> several fields when a name is changed. Further, the TIGER attributes
> are mostly really outdated at this point as they come from 2005 data
> and have rarely been updated by mappers.
>
>
> What do you all think about this?
>
>
i usually leave the county tags, and remove all the others. there are rare
cases where a road has a historic name but is no longer signed and i may
in that case convert the tiger name into an old_name tag. i think the zip
tags from tiger are without value.

richard

-- 
rwelty at averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20160602/e77dd604/attachment.sig>