Re: [Talk-us] Tiger 2007 Data
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Nick Hocking [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Well, #2 would be nice but it would be tricky to detect a collision with an existing way. Frankly, because the first TIGER import was done, the number of completely new ways that would be added in a new import would be small, and the number of those ways that conflict with ways added manually by editors would be even smaller. So, I think it's a small sacrifice to have to remove a few duplicated roads in exchange for county-wide improved accuracy. Karl, I agree #2 could be tricky but I believe it is essential. I don't think you can corrupt someones edits and then say to them sorry, we decided to sacrifice your hard work because we determined that it was for the greater good. I don't see it as corrupting. It's not mangling the mapper's work in any way. If they don't like the new overlapping road, then just delete the TIGER one. It hope that is not the OSM way. My sense is that the OSM way is do it your damn self. Also I despute your statement of a few but notwithstanding that, this is not a numbers game.. I have to admit I don't have hard numbers to back up my statement, but intuitively, how many roads would have been added in 2 years? I'm sure there are some statistics somewhere stating the number of roads in TIGER 2005 (2004?) and in TIGER 2007. That would give a magnitude to the issue. gee officer - I only killed a few people - there are hundreds left is not going to get you very far. Really? You're going to compare overlapping ways with a capital crime? Still, I will say that if the numbers of duplicated way are so few then I think that the person who creates the duplicated ways should also fix them up. Then I'd have no problem with the uploads so long as rules 1 and 3 are also kept. That goes back to *detecting* the overlapping ways. Can be done by JOSM's validator, so maybe there's hope. Maybe it could be done like Dave handled the last import--if anyone is concerned about conflicts, they can handle their county themselves. Karl ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tiger 2008 Data
ian wrote: I just e-mailed the Census Bureau, and the friendly woman on the other end told me that they were planning on releasing TIGER/Line 2008 by the end of this year. Keep that in mind when we are talking about importing 2007 data. She said to keep an eye on the TIGER website ( http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/) for updates about the 2008 data. does the census bureau publish any sort of a diff, or delta dataset? i'd think that just in terms of raw crunching that having just the differences from year to year would save a lot of work, both manual and CPU-cycles. paul =- paul fox, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (arlington, ma, where it's degrees) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tiger 2008 Data
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Paul Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: does the census bureau publish any sort of a diff, or delta dataset? i'd think that just in terms of raw crunching that having just the differences from year to year would save a lot of work, both manual and CPU-cycles. I don't think so, but since the data Dave imported into OSM was with the old format (TIGER/Line) and the TIGER 2007/2008 data is in shapefile format, we wouldn't really be able to use diff data anyway. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tiger 2008 Data
ian wrote: On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Paul Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: does the census bureau publish any sort of a diff, or delta dataset? i'd think that just in terms of raw crunching that having just the differences from year to year would save a lot of work, both manual and CPU-cycles. I don't think so, but since the data Dave imported into OSM was with the old format (TIGER/Line) and the TIGER 2007/2008 data is in shapefile format, we wouldn't really be able to use diff data anyway. yes -- i was really thinking of ongoing work, since you brought up 2008. (it's not like this is the last time the to-import-or-not question will come up.) paul =- paul fox, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (arlington, ma, where it's degrees) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tiger Data 2007
I don't see it as corrupting. It's not mangling the mapper's work in any way. If they don't like the new overlapping road, then just delete the TIGER one. Ok - We've hit an impass then. You can't just hit delete You have to merge all the duplicated data in order to make the way/area sane It takes much more effort than to originally edit in the new road. So you have not just mangled the mappers works you've actually turned it into negative value content for the OSM dataset. I'll leave you with one more comment that I can assure you I don't mean to be inflamatory, but I would understand if you take it so. There can only be two winners from a bulk upload of Tiger data Tele Atlas and Navteq. Nick ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tiger Data 2007
There's another consideration ... what if a TIGER import is done somewhat carefully, but not quite carefully enough? So 90% of the areas are made better, and 10% are made worse ? If those 10% are located where someone has poured their heart into making a carefully constructed map - you could disillusion some of your most active contributors. Many would think: if a bunch of invalid TIGER roads that need to be deleted reappear in my hometown - why should I be forced to clean it up? I made it right the first time! People enter data into OSM for the sense of accomplishment. If an import improves the quality of the overall dataset in the short term - but demotivates others to contribute, because their work had been stomped on - in the long term, you may hurt data quality. I'm not saying don't import new TIGER data - I'm saying, be utterly paranoid when you do. I don't know how well the first import went - it seems it was necessary for building a base line - but you don't want to de-motivate people who contribute. -Alan From: Nick Hocking [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:28:03 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Tiger Data 2007 I don't see it as corrupting. It's not mangling the mapper's work in any way. If they don't like the new overlapping road, then just delete the TIGER one. Ok - We've hit an impass then. You can't just hit delete You have to merge all the duplicated data in order to make the way/area sane It takes much more effort than to originally edit in the new road. So you have not just mangled the mappers works you've actually turned it into negative value content for the OSM dataset. I'll leave you with one more comment that I can assure you I don't mean to be inflamatory, but I would understand if you take it so. There can only be two winners from a bulk upload of Tiger data Tele Atlas and Navteq. Nick ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tiger Data 2007
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 15:46 -0700, Alan Brown wrote: If those 10% are located where someone has poured their heart into making a carefully constructed map - you could disillusion some of your most active contributors. Yup, I completely agree. But, one of the nice things is that the active contributors are the ones that tend to read mailing lists and see the OSM site regularly. They should be the easiest to contact and be the most flexible about finding the best ways to get this data imported. If somebody owns 95% of the edits in a county, I don't really *ever* think it is OK to overrule them, certainly not in some automated way. But, we surely have to distinguish those users from the ones that popped up, moved one road in potlach to match Yahoo, and were never heard from again. -- Dave ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tiger 2007 Data
I do not think there is anything to gain from the counties that are listed to not be improved. My county (orange county fl.) is one that was NOT improved yet, and in QGIS it looks to be unmodified from the original tiger import. There are not any new tags in the data that would add anything either. Orange county Fl. does not have dual carriage ways, but Lake county Fl. which was updated does have them. I have looked at the current county files, and the same is true. So I'm not sure it is the tiger improvement making it dual carriage ways, or the fact that the source county has them as dual to start with. Dale On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 6:46 PM, Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 20:39 +1100, Nick Hocking wrote: On a more infalmatory note, I checked with yahoo and google and it seems that in a LOT or areas more than half of the tiger roads don't actually exist. The mappers must have been paid by the road :-) Is tiger 2007 any better in this regard and does it yet have dual carriageways for all the interstates? I don't know. That's why I'm writing the conversion scripts, so I can look at it in my existing OSM tools and see how it renders. If anyone knows, or wants to look into it, please stick whatever you learn on the wiki. I'll make sure to keep checking it. -- Dave ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Dale Puch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
