[OSM-talk] TIGER Addressing Import
steve at asklater.com
Tue Oct 13 18:45:07 BST 2009
On 13 Oct 2009, at 10:37, Hillsman, Edward wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 18:20, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
>> Dave - super awesome.
>> As I said on IRC the other week, but I'll repeat here for all - I
>> think dumping the addressing for all 3,000 counties and then letting
>> people import them one by one will be the best way to do it.
>> Another random thought - should the addressing ways be one long way
>> with two nodes per block, or lots of two node ways? My immediate
>> preference is for the former...?
> Although my preference would also be for the former, people will break
> the ways midblock, for very good reasons. For example, recording a
> bridge in the middle of the block would entail splitting the way into
> three--one for the bridge, and one on each end of it. Most likely,
> piece will still carry the full address range, even though the bridge
> should have none and the range should be split. In Tampa, we also have
> instances of streets transitioning from 4-lane undivided to 4-lane
> divided ("dual carriageways") midblock.
> Which raises another issue. The old TIGER files had a single way for
> most of the dual carriageway major streets in our area. I have not
> looked at the new 2009 TIGER files, but I suspect that they have
> representations of these streets. When splitting these into two
> one-way routes, should both then carry the original addressing ranges,
> or should one carry the odd address numbers and the other carry the
> address numbers?
no... the addressing is on entirely separate parallel ways
>> Also - the ways will be deplaced 90 degress to the road centerline to
>> push them to the edge of the road I assume - but you also need to
>> 'pull in' the end nodes too so they are not laying on top of the
>> streets at each end, if you see what I mean?
>> Yours &c.
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
More information about the talk