Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009TIGER data
riding on the assumption that we'll have something like 'tiger:reviewed = no' (with editor support) to mark unreviewed areas. Ideally, an indication that an address is unreviewed would be passed along by any services that use So, who did volunteer to write that editor-support? What editor is it? In case of josm, do you have the ticket-number for this enhancement/plugin? It turns out that the same tiger:reviewed tag works for address interpolation ways. The addr:inclusion tag could also be used for this data to mark what has been updated, but people are likely to forget or not know to update either one after they fix the data. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: On 11/13/09 10:43 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: O TIGER is an incredibly huge data set. It comes from what may be the most diverse set of primary sources of anything in the world short of OSM itself. It shouldn't be trusted explicitly (no single map should). Do you have some more constructive information about places where you've found it to be inaccurate? i have found it to be not far off in NY state, but i was pretty horrified at how bad it was between Sheperdstown WV and Harpers Ferry WV when i was in that area in August. clearly there is a lot of variation. richard Yes, exactly. On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Dave Hansen d...@sr71.net wrote: Do you have some more constructive information about places where you've found it to be inaccurate? For pretty much all of Florida there is parcel-by-parcel address information available from the county. If you want to import address information, that would be much more accurate than TIGER. I'm sorry if you don't find this constructive. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
For pretty much all of Florida there is parcel-by-parcel address information available from the county. If you want to import address information, that would be much more accurate than TIGER. For that case, clearly the county information is vastly preferred over TIGER. I'm curious about the history of how most of this information is freely available in FL - my county GIS has a public mapping application web page, but they sell data only on DVDs for $$$ with full restrictions on data usage. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com wrote: the problem is Tiger contains tons of dead data. No, the problem is that TIGER uses privacy-obfuscated potential addresses, while the Karlsruhe Schema is set up for actual addresses. Yes, in some locations the error is small - in particular if the potential address range and the actual address range are similar. In other locations the error is much larger. TIGER is fine if you don't have anything else. But that's not the case where I live. It's fine to fall back on if your actual address search fails. But adding it in a way that encourages people to *update* the potential addresses with actual addresses defeats that possibility. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote: For pretty much all of Florida there is parcel-by-parcel address information available from the county. If you want to import address information, that would be much more accurate than TIGER. For that case, clearly the county information is vastly preferred over TIGER. Hence my request: please don't import TIGER addresses using the Karlsruhe Schema in locations where there is better data already available. In particular, please don't import this stuff into Hillsborough County, Florida. Not unless you're going to use a schema which can co-exist with actual addressing. I'm curious about the history of how most of this information is freely available in FL - my county GIS has a public mapping application web page, but they sell data only on DVDs for $$$ with full restrictions on data usage. I believe the state passed a law but I really haven't bothered to investigate. You're not in Florida, right? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: In particular, please don't import this stuff into Hillsborough County, Florida. Not unless you're going to use a schema which can co-exist with actual addressing. And don't import it at all in Orange County, Florida: they already have both actual and theoretical address ranges, plus address points, at http://www.orangecountyfl.net/cms/DEPT/growth/maps/Addressing.htm As for the reason Florida counties don't charge lots of money for this data, see Florida statutes chapter 119: The Legislature finds that, given advancements in technology, providing access to public records by remote electronic means is an additional method of access that agencies should strive to provide to the extent feasible. If an agency provides access to public records by remote electronic means, then such access should be provided in the most cost-effective and efficient manner available to the agency providing the information. As for why they don't put restrictions on the data, that's likely because (under Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service) it can't be copyrighted under US law in the first place. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
Anthony writes: As for why they don't put restrictions on the data, that's likely because (under Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service) it can't be copyrighted under US law in the first place. The *data* can't be copyrighted, but the format and presentation of it can. But then again, whenever we import into OSM we necessary remove the copyrightable elements, so no worries, mate. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
TIGER is fine if you don't have anything else. But that's not the case where I live. It's fine to fall back on if your actual address search fails. But adding it in a way that encourages people to *update* the potential addresses with actual addresses defeats that possibility. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but if TIGER potential addresses are added by Karlsruhe Schema, shouldn't people actually update the potential addresses with actual addresses? Mere mortals can do that quickly. They can even reposition over the approximate house line if the houses are visible from a Aerial photo. And us nerds with GPS's, aerial imagery, and editor tools will replace them with house number nodes in the exact position. To address comments made by others - having something present prompts me to update and doesn't remove motivation. I'm the exact opposite of the TIGER kills crowdsourcing point of view; I probably wouldn't have even gotten interested if there were no TIGER roads present. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
On Nov 14, 2009, at 5:49 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote: Hi, 2009/11/14 SteveC st...@asklater.com: In Denver the houses are all set back a lot further, so some way to say 'on north-south roads, set back X feet' might help a lot. Or, in JOSM just search for all the ways that make up the addressing on one side of the street and move them manually. Many times for each one. I've done a similar import of address data in my area and when writing the converter I forgot to do the projection the first time, this resulted in a similar effect to what you describe. I've not seen Dave's data but looking at the code he's using there's no projection to mercaartor when offsetting the interpolation ways. My ugly code is at http://repo.or.cz/w/ump2osm.git In San Francisco, for divided highways the old TIGER data used to bow in to a point every block and we had, I think, automated ways to split those out in to two straight lines. This is reflected with little bows on the address lines at each intersection - see guerrero for example. What really needs to be done for TIGER addresses import is match the streets from TIGER to those in OSM (which should be easy since they all still have the TIGER id's) and generate the address geometry based on these. Otherwise someone will need to do all of the geometry corrections that people have done for this data in the last nearly 2 years. yeah but that might be non-trivial, whereas I'm happy to go over an entire county budging things Cheers Yours c. Steve ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote: TIGER is fine if you don't have anything else. But that's not the case where I live. It's fine to fall back on if your actual address search fails. But adding it in a way that encourages people to *update* the potential addresses with actual addresses defeats that possibility. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but if TIGER potential addresses are added by Karlsruhe Schema, shouldn't people actually update the potential addresses with actual addresses? I'd say no. Preferably the potential address information and the actual address information would both be available. They are different pieces of information, useful for different purposes. Mere mortals can do that quickly. They can even reposition over the approximate house line if the houses are visible from a Aerial photo. And us nerds with GPS's, aerial imagery, and editor tools will replace them with house number nodes in the exact position. I don't see the savings. 99% of the work would be in surveying. Adding a new way is trivial, especially using good editor tools. But if you want to do that, in locations where there isn't better information already available, be my guest. Just don't do it where there's already better information available. Especially not in my county. To address comments made by others - having something present prompts me to update and doesn't remove motivation. I'm the exact opposite of the TIGER kills crowdsourcing point of view; I probably wouldn't have even gotten interested if there were no TIGER roads present. I very much agree with that. But TIGER roads are half-decent approximations of what we want in OSM. TIGER addresses aren't, at least not in all areas. If you want to add them in areas where the data is good, and there's no better data available, fine. But please don't add it to Hillsborough County, Florida. And preferably don't add it to any county in Florida without first checking with the county to see if there's better data available - because chances are there are. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Qgis.png for an example of something I whipped up for my neighborhood in a few hours (which is about how long it took me to figure out the query select ST_Difference(ST_Boundary(a.the_geom), ST_Boundary(ST_Union(b.the_geom))) as the_geom into quick_test from neighborhood_parcel as a join neighborhood_parcel as b on a.gid!=b.gid where ST_Intersects(a.the_geom, b.the_geom) group by a.the_geom;). I've got address information for every one of those parcels. This is much better than the TIGER data, if you want actual addresses and not potential address ranges. I haven't uploaded it yet, mainly because I want to do it right. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
On 13 Nov 2009, at 23:56 , Dan Homerick wrote: On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com wrote: I'm highly in favor of doing the import, regardless. I think the inaccuracies will be far easier to fix than to put the addressing in from scratch. I've done a lot of mapping in my area, but haven't been willing to start doing addresses, even before I knew that the TIGER import was coming down the line. I would be willing to search out and fix errors though, since all it will take is changing a few nodes. That's just not happening. If bad data is in it's hard to verify it's wrong. If in doubt don't import. Empty map will tell everyone immediately there is work to do. Wrong data is hard to even figure out there is a need to survey. I'm not sure what you mean by, That's just not happening. Clarify? forget the technical aspect for a minute and think about motivation, how a community works and all that. no one is interested to cleanup crap after a bad import. Most people want to work on something challenging interesting and new. tiger import was great from technical point of view but didn't allow to build a community from scratch. no one is motivated to fix this broken data. some cautious people are even afraid to touch tiger data because it has this Tiger is a reference data I don't feel confident to change it label attached. most european countries had no imports and yet have better maps large community … I should add that my comment about being highly in favor of the import is riding on the assumption that we'll have something like 'tiger:reviewed = no' (with editor support) to mark unreviewed areas. Ideally, an indication that an address is unreviewed would be passed along by any services that use them. minute is over, now the technical aspect. osm is open to everyone to add, change, delete everything. there is no technical solution to have a tag like 'tiger:reviewed = no' doing anything useful if mappers don't agree on the usage of it. removing it can mean - I have seen it, it's approximately in place - I have done a survey with GPS - I have verified location on Yahoo is correct - One of the above AND name or any other attribute is correct - Everything is correct and it's as if I had entered the data myself Everyone has different thresholds when to remove such a tag, some may just remove it because it clutters the default josm drawing and it is practically impossible to use josm in US without patching it. And I have not yet started to think about vandalism. OSM will never work like a DB with authoritative characteristics. follow the basic rules. map what's on the ground. as I mentioned earlier even some official county data is badly broken. If we start to accept broken imports as better than survey osm is just a me to thing and completely useless. If anyone is interested in a me to solution it's called Google maps and has much better infrastructure than osm will ever have. they have imported all county data, park data, tiger data and refined with sattelite image tracing and street view data analysis. We can't beat them. But we can make something different with different value. the survey on ground is the strength of a community project. - Dan ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Super Wal-Mart Tag
Randy rwtnospam-new...@yahoo.com writes: Matthias Julius wrote: Randy rwtnospam-new...@yahoo.com writes: Dale Puch wrote: Would it be improper to tag the true Wal-Mart services to the building way, (either using semicolons or shop_n and amenity_n, and the partnered services (McDonald's, etc.) as separate nodes in the building, and related with is-in? I consider numbered tags to be messy. Nodes inside the building is not better unless you are really producing a map of the building's internals. I would use relations for this purpose, e.g. one relation per shop. Matthias I guess I still don't understand all there is to know about relations. I thought you had to have a map entry such as a node or way to relate, in a relation. Back to the wiki for me. Yes, I would create a relation for each thing in the building having the building itself (area, node or relation) as the only member. That way the different shops (or banks, law offices, dentists, ...) in the building can be independant objects and reference the building. Matthias ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
no one is interested to cleanup crap after a bad import. No one is writing this email. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com wrote: some cautious people are even afraid to touch tiger data because it has this Tiger is a reference data I don't feel confident to change it label attached. If you're scared of the tiger tags, just remove them. They're basically pointless anyway. Anyone who wants to know the history of a way can use the history feature. I have to agree with Dave Hansen that the TIGER road import did more good than harm. But there's a lot to be learned from it. And the TIGER address information is not comparable, because it's not even the same concept as the one people want in OSM. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Status of TIGER tag removal
Hi, just a quick status report. The process of removing unnecessary tags [1] has been running for 95 days now, and has processed 113 out of roughly 175 million nodes. That's a little slower than expected and if the process continues at that speed, I'm afraid is going to drag on into the first half of January, 2010. I will however try a few tricks to achieve a speedup (perhaps run a second process during off-peak times). Other than that slight slowdown, everything looks fine. Data users should already be seeing reduced extract sizes across the whole US (the update proceeds county by county but in random sequence, and also re-visits counties with large numbers of updates). Bye Frederik [1] The process will drop source, tiger:tlid, tiger:upload_uuid and tiger:county from all nodes which have at least one of the three tiger tags. It will not drop source from other nodes. If a node is found to be tagless after removing these, and the node is not used by any way, it will be removed entirely. -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
What really needs to be done for TIGER addresses import is match the streets from TIGER to those in OSM (which should be easy since they all still have the TIGER id's) and generate the address geometry based on these. Otherwise someone will need to do all of the geometry corrections that people have done for this data in the last nearly 2 years. matching Tiger id's is a very bad idea. you need to compare geometries. during edits ways are split, merged copied moved, deleted nodes added node, … matching id only a good idea if the way version is 1 and all nodes are version 2 (assuming the attribute cleanup on nodes is finished soon) Cheers ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
On 14 Nov 2009, at 10:22 , Dave Hansen wrote: On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 23:56 -0800, Dan Homerick wrote: i, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com wrote: I'm highly in favor of doing the import, regardless. I think the inaccuracies will be far easier to fix than to put the addressing in from scratch. I've done a lot of mapping in my area, but haven't been willing to start doing addresses, even before I knew that the TIGER import was coming down the line. I would be willing to search out and fix errors though, since all it will take is changing a few nodes. That's just not happening. If bad data is in it's hard to verify it's wrong. If in doubt don't import. Empty map will tell everyone immediately there is work to do. Wrong data is hard to even figure out there is a need to survey. I'm not sure what you mean by, That's just not happening. Clarify? I think he means that he'd prefer it not be imported. not exactly, wherever it's good quality and no better data from county available we should import. However, unless Apollinaris was appointed supreme OSM dictator and I missed it, I'm not sure it means any more than Apollinaris stating his opinion. even SteveC isn't accepted as dictator. how would anyone listen to my dictatorship If we can come up with a scheme for getting the addressing imported in a sane fashion and the consensus is that people want it done that way, it'll get imported. There are still quite a few squeaky wheels that like to grumble about TIGER, but I haven't heard a single person say that it did more harm than good. exactly, I do see a big problem for areas with existing address data. before any upload this has to be respected and tiger addresses skipped unless the mappers agree to remove their work. -- Dave ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
On 14 Nov 2009, at 18:05 , andrzej zaborowski wrote: 2009/11/15 Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com: matching Tiger id's is a very bad idea. you need to compare geometries. during edits ways are split, merged copied moved, deleted nodes added node, Most of these operations are not a problem (except copying a whole way to somewhere else), the changed geometry is precisely what we want to detect, so we can't use geometry for matching. copying is very common for all motorways and other ways with separated lanes. the worst example I have seen was a tiger way copied and used for a piece of coastline. merging is also a big problem because one of the tlid numbers will gone and the other extending in a different area. I'm sure it has happened that mappers have incorrectly copied the ID to some other way but I really hope that are isolated cases. You claimed people were afraid to touch the Tiger tags. I agree with Anthony that these tags are useless *except* this one tag, the Id *is* useful, please don't remove it. yes many of them are useless, I was planning to ask Frederick to extend his bot when he is done with nodes. I think tlid should be kept for reference. some mappers like tiger:reviewed and this should be kept too. zip will be obsolete with address import. county can be derived from county boundaries. not sure about the meaning and usefulness of others Dave knows best why these tags are there and may shed some light on it. Cheers ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
What I know of it is the tiger ID came from the ID of each unique item in the tiger DB. A road segment that had an address range was one, the next address range was another ID. Basically each intersection to intersection. All well and good except in OSM those would all be septate ways, so they were combined along with the ID's. This might have worked a lot better if they were combined as a relation, but that wasn't an option then. I think the idea was that the ID's could be matched up later if any updates were needed. The amount of poor quality data in tiger and the editing done to it made this a LOT harder than I think was originally planned on. Now there are a ton of roads that have not been touched since the import, and these may be matchable and machine replaced with newer data. The problem as I see it is the boundary data between new and hand edited. So for unedited roads the ID's MAY be useful. While that data may still be on the server in the history, most work is done against a planet file extract that does not have that history. I think what we need is to find some good SQL gurus that can figure out the best way to match and process this stuff on the DB side. Dale On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 9:05 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Anthony that these tags are useless *except* this one tag, the Id *is* useful, please don't remove it. What's useful about it? Or to ask the question a different way, what is the tag supposed to mean? On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 9:11 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: To clarify what I mean, a good measure is probably whether you're changing the name on the road. If you're changing the geometry (splitting, merging, whatever) or fixing the spelling or expanding abbrevs, keep the Id. If you're changing the name to a whole different one, remove the id. There must be a better way to compare the name of a road than counting on all the editors to copy/preserve the tiger id. When you merge two TIGER ways which id do you keep? Or should you keep them both (separated by a semicolon)? Where is this documented? Unless you can point me to some documentation as to what the tiger id *means* (*), I'm not going to think about it at all. Sometimes I keep it, sometimes I delete it, sometimes I delete the whole way and create a new one in its place (without any of the tiger tags). And I'm sure I'm not the only one. (*) I take it to mean simply that the originally imported way came from a certain TIGER way, which is preserved in the way history ___ 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
Re: [Talk-us] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
Apollinaris Schoell wrote: even SteveC isn't accepted as dictator. how would anyone listen to my dictatorship Dave was probably reacting to the wording. The phrase is often used when making a promise or threat, as in That's just not happening while I'm in charge. I interpreted the That's just not happening. as simply a pessimistic view of the likelihood of it getting done; People will not find it easy and interesting to fix up lots of bad TIGER addressing data. Just my $.02 /Stellan ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
no one is interested to cleanup crap after a bad import. I am. tiger import was great from technical point of view but didn't allow to build a community from scratch. I didn't want to build anything from scratch. I'm simply not that motivated to go out and wander everywhere mapping everything. If we had to start from scratch, I would not do it. no one is motivated to fix this broken data. I am. I have fixed a lot of it. And in doing so, I have made complete, correct map areas, much larger than I ever would have done by starting from scratch. Be careful about making absolute generalized statements like everyone and no one. - Alan ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
On Sat, 2009-11-14 at 21:35 -0500, Anthony wrote: Unless you can point me to some documentation as to what the tiger id *means* (*), I'm not going to think about it at all. Sometimes I keep it, sometimes I delete it, sometimes I delete the whole way and create a new one in its place (without any of the tiger tags). And I'm sure I'm not the only one. I'd prefer that people preserve the TIGER data whenever possible. It's not a primary concern and don't let it slow down your mapping, but it is a useful data point. Let's say we're doing a future TIGER import. Updated roads will have the same TLID between different TIGER revisions and that gives us a good starting point. It's a third bit of data to augment any matching decisions we make based on location and name. We can get along without it, but it *IS* useful. Way history is fine as a backup, but tracing that through splits and joins is not going to be easy. It's much more straightforward to just get it directly. -- Dave ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
