[OSM-talk] TIGER in Santa Barbara County, CA

[Matthew Perry]

On Dec 12, 2007 5:31 PM, Christopher Schmidt <crschmidt at metacarta.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 05:24:30PM -0800, Matthew Perry wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 2007 5:15 PM, Karl Newman <siliconfiend at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >However, looking at the TIGER
> > > status page (http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~daveh/tiger/stats.html), it
> > > may be too late for Santa Barbara--it's uploading now as I write.
> > >
> >
> > Wow. Strange timing.
> >
> > What does this mean exactly? That the old stuff will be deleted?
> > archived? merged somehow?
>
> The old stuff will be there -- and so will the new stuff. Merging will
> need to be done by hand. This is the case anyway, but merging from a
> seperate .osm file is (according to everything I've heard) significantly
> easier than merging after the data is uploaded.
>

Wow. That really sucks.

I really, really wish we could have worked out a way to upload the
rest of the county outside the small bbox in which alot of good work
has been done. Or at the very least I wish someone had bothered to
contact me and worked out a better solution BEFORE going in and
dumping a bunch of sub-par data on top of many hours of quality work.

Any estimates on how long the "manual merge" takes? My experience with
editing TIGER data led me to conclude that starting from scratch was a
faster, less painful solution. This is in fact what lead me to start
using OSM in the first place. If I had know this was going to replaced
by TIGER data, well, I wouldn't have started contributing to OSM until
after the TIGER data showed up.

How about this for a solution? All Tiger data within the BBOX of
34.35, -119.93, 34.52, -119.61 gets removed. Then we can merge
everything along the edges? I think thats a fair choice.

-- 
Matthew T. Perry
http://www.perrygeo.net

"Never ascribe to malice, that which can be adequately explained by
incompetence."