[Talk-us] TIGER 2022 PLACE dataset

Tue Jan 17 16:14:18 UTC 2023

here?

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/bas/information/cdp.html

      --Brian M Hamlin    /  MAPLABS  /  Berkeley, Calif.

On 1/17/23 08:02, talk-us-request at openstreetmap.org wrote:
> Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to
> 	talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	talk-us-request at openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	talk-us-owner at openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-us digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>     1. TIGER 2022 PLACE dataset
>        (Aleksandar Matejevic (Hi-Tech Talents LLC))
>     2. Re: TIGER 2022 PLACE dataset (Kristin Rollins)
>     3. Re: TIGER 2022 PLACE dataset (Bill Ricker)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 12:21:18 +0000
> From: "Aleksandar Matejevic (Hi-Tech Talents LLC)"
> 	<v-maalek at microsoft.com>
> To: "talk-us at openstreetmap.org" <talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: [Talk-us] TIGER 2022 PLACE dataset
> Message-ID:
> 	<PR3PR83MB0474B92AC3CF1376CEE9705695C69 at PR3PR83MB0474.EURPRD83.prod.outlook.com>
> 	
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hello,
> I have a question regarding TIGER 2022 PLACE dataset (https://www2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2022/PLACE/).
>
> Is it OK with the community to add these polygons to the OSM?
>
> I saw there were some imports of the previous datasets in the past years, but lot of polygons are still missing, and license looks to be compatible with the OSM one.
> I am not talking about mass import of the data, but using polygons and adding them one by one if they are not already added and improving geometries of the existing ones.
>
> What is the opinion on this effort?
>
> Best regards,
> Aleksandar Matejevic
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20230117/32fc4b2c/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 10:59:07 -0500
> From: "Kristin Rollins" <gis at kristin.verumsolum.com>
> To: "Oisin Herriott (Insight Global Inc) via Talk-us"
> 	<talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] TIGER 2022 PLACE dataset
> Message-ID: <e0db0d18-c11e-4256-9d2d-cb0521c17c07 at app.fastmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I don't know much about this 2022 dataset in particular, but when you speak of "improving geometries of existing [polygons]" that slightly worries me. I know one of the issues that has been found with previous TIGER imports is low-quality data. So? I personally would be wary about any use of it that didn't combine with on-the-ground knowledge.
>
> To put it another way: how will you know that you are improving geometries instead of introducing errors to them?
>
> Kristin
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023, at 7:21 AM, Aleksandar Matejevic (Hi-Tech Talents LLC) via Talk-us wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I have a question regarding TIGER 2022 PLACE dataset (https://www2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2022/PLACE/).
>>
>> Is it OK with the community to add these polygons to the OSM?
>>
>> I saw there were some imports of the previous datasets in the past years, but lot of polygons are still missing, and license looks to be compatible with the OSM one.
>>
>> I am not talking about mass import of the data, but using polygons and adding them one by one if they are not already added and improving geometries of the existing ones.
>>
>> What is the opinion on this effort?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Aleksandar Matejevic
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20230117/ea9bafc0/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 11:01:37 -0500
> From: Bill Ricker <bill.n1vux at gmail.com>
> To: "Aleksandar Matejevic (Hi-Tech Talents LLC)"
> 	<v-maalek at microsoft.com>
> Cc: "talk-us at openstreetmap.org" <talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] TIGER 2022 PLACE dataset
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAAbKA3XADXtRce8zo1mbrFfR-K5bRfZoNArenrN0g+5mx-kCow at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 8:22 AM Aleksandar Matejevic (Hi-Tech Talents LLC)
> via Talk-us <talk-us at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> I have a question regarding TIGER 2022 PLACE dataset (
>> https://www2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2022/PLACE/).
>> Is it OK with the community to add these polygons to the OSM?
>>
> Can you point to the description of what these PLACE polygons represent and
> what meta-data comes with each polygon?
>
> What are they in OSM terms? Are they Admin boundaries?
>
> (Do we even consider US Census CDP, Census Designated Place, a mappable
> entity?)
>
> I saw there were some imports of the previous datasets in the past years,
>> but lot of polygons are still missing,
>>
> Can you provide (an) example(s) of what's missing from OSM but in TIGER
> 2022 PLACE that would be beneficial in OSM?
>
> and license looks to be compatible with the OSM one.
> I expect so from history, but for the record of the conversation, it would
> be good to link and quote it here.
>
>> I am not talking about mass import of the data,
>>
> Ok good , that's a very different discussion.
>
>> but using polygons and adding them one by one if they are not already
>> added and improving geometries of the existing ones.
>> What is the opinion on this effort?
>>
> Using individual polygons of compatible license to improve existing
> polygons or to start a missing but useful polygon of a sort we are trying
> to curate seems (almost*) unobjectionable.
>
> *Provided that there isn't a better source of compatible license easily
> available for the polygon in question.
> (E.g. if a specialist agency has lakes, forests that are more refined than
> Census's, we'd prefer theirs.
> US Census studies settlements for purposes of the enumeration - notoriously
> did not record One Way direction as Enumerators walk their blocks in cities
> - not uninhabited wildlands, so will likely have fewer points in a polygon
> that indicates "no one lives here", while having excellent polygons for
> "this is an incorporated place, inhabitant count rolls-up to entity # NNNNN
> named YOUR PLACENAME HERE? at level LL" (we use these as Admin boundaries?)
> and "this is an unincorporated place and the census definition is this"
> (maybe we don't, as there's no Now Entering CDP imaginary boundary
> signage?).)
>
> (OTOH if the better source is not easily available - or will require a high
> level negotiation to get a compatible license statement from their agency
> management!  - starting with the CENSUS polygon makes sense, even if it's
> coarser than we'd ideally prefer.)
>
> ? "Your State's Name Here <https://youtu.be/96Wtcpje0uE>" - Lou & Peter
> Berryman - A Generic Folk-Song praising whatever state they're visiting and
> performing in today.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20230117/e163ed92/attachment.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Talk-us Digest, Vol 182, Issue 9
> ***************************************
>