[Talk-us] Comparing Tiger 2017 dataset with OSM in a automatedway.

OSM Volunteer stevea steveaOSM at softworkers.com
Thu Oct 26 18:00:44 UTC 2017


Thank you, Tod.  Yes, I MIGHT find a VERY SELECT SUBSET of these data SOMEWHAT useful, as minor amounts of them seem to be accurate and more-up-to-date enough to introduce into OSM.  But certainly not using any sort of automated method.  Essentially, every single datum would need to be human-reviewed, possibly corrected, likely conflated, and for a great many of them, on-the-ground verified.  I'd say "garbage" seems too strong, but "very noisy with a highly limited potential to add some minor value to our map, coupled with great effort to vet, improve and enter the data" seems about right.

SteveA
California


> On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:50 AM, Tod Fitch <tod at fitchdesign.com> wrote:
> In the area I now live in California, my first impression looking at this is that the data is garbage. It looks to me that blindly importing would re-introduce TIGER errors that have been successfully removed. Looking at a tiny area in Arizona where my family still has a house, it is not much better.
> 
> My opinion is that a direct import of this data should not be done at all.
> 
> That said, when helping clean up the chdr reversion mess in Arizona I noticed a number of new subdivisions in the Phoenix metro area where this data set could be useful. But it would need to be done very selectively. For example, there are new roads shown that are not evident in the aerial imagery available to us for OSM. I would not add those unless a ground survey indicated they actually exist. And there are lots that I would characterize as tracks or service roads that have the traditional TIGER residential value.
> 
> Is a null length value even valid? Looking at the raw OSM files I see ‘k="name" v=""’ in a number of places.
> 
> Tod




More information about the Talk-us mailing list