Re: [Talk-us] Comparing Tiger 2017 dataset with OSM in a automatedway.

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Nathan Mills  wrote:
> The tree cover issue is precisely why many states that have seasons have a
> recurrent leaf-off (sometimes even in IR) imaging program.
>
> Arkansas has their imagery, along with a raft of other open data, available
> on Geostor as a WMS service that should be usable in JOSM and also as
> downloadable data in your choice of extent and format. Oklahoma's is also
> available somewhere, but I'm not sure where. They lack a statewide data
> repository, so their data is scattered about various state and university
> sites.
>
> I know the wiki has a list of imagery sources, but I don't think it has any
> listed specifically as leaf off. Maybe someday I'll find some time to
> compile one.

New York definitely has leaves-off data, in 4-band R/G/B/NIR:

https://orthos.dhses.ny.gov/

although we also have some
significant amount of coniferous and mixed forest where tracing is
still difficult.  I would absolutely love it if this data source were available
for tracing in JOSM. I've emailed the data custodian repeatedly asking
for confirmation that this is an acceptable use, but never received a
reply.

Is the statement in the accompanying metadata,

Access_Constraints: Some imagery tiles are classified as sensitive due
to their content.

Use_Constraints:Use of sensitive imagery, if granted, is only for the
use specified in the request.

something on which we may rely? I was proceeding with a formal request
out of a superabundance of caution, and because I live in a jurisdiction
where County of Suffolk v First American is still good law. That said,
the State's official position (https://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/ftext/f15695.htm)
is that its own open records are, to all intents and purposes,
in the public domain. If I were hosting the data on my own server,
I'd have no reservations at all, but I surely do not want to risk
the project in any way.

For that matter, do we also need further assurance that an official
who grants us permission is, in fact, authorized to grant it?
How far does our (justified!) official paranoia about external data
extend?

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Comparing Tiger 2017 dataset with OSM in a automatedway.

[Clifford Snow]

You had me all excited to see Washington in your list, turns out it's DC. I
am impressed with the quality of work the locals are doing. Very few ways
in your extract.

Do you have your process document anywhere so we can reproduce the results
for other areas?

Clifford

-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Comparing Tiger 2017 dataset with OSM in a automatedway.

[Clifford Snow]

Washington State just completed a aerial imagery program this spring, a
leaf-off program. It was funded by individual sources so the rasters aren't
available. Fortunately, many of the counties have open data with road
centerlines.

Clifford
-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Comparing Tiger 2017 dataset with OSM in a automatedway.

[Nathan Mills]

The tree cover issue is precisely why many states that have seasons have a 
recurrent leaf-off (sometimes even in IR) imaging program. 

Arkansas has their imagery, along with a raft of other open data, available on 
Geostor as a WMS service that should be usable in JOSM and also as downloadable 
data in your choice of extent and format. Oklahoma's is also available 
somewhere, but I'm not sure where. They lack a statewide data repository, so 
their data is scattered about various state and university sites.

I know the wiki has a list of imagery sources, but I don't think it has any 
listed specifically as leaf off. Maybe someday I'll find some time to compile 
one.

-Nathan


On October 26, 2017 1:00:05 PM EDT, OSM Volunteer stevea 
 wrote:
>I don't know where all of this is going, and wanted to see for myself,
>so I downloaded the California file (the largest one of all) and zoomed
>in on where I live and am most familiar with, Santa Cruz County.  Thank
>you for providing the ten states worth of translated data for us to
>take a look.
>
>What I found was, um, "interesting."  In urban areas, there were indeed
>a few highway=service, service=alley ways which Bing confirms are
>either there, mostly there, or "almost there," as in "slightly offset
>by a meter or three."  However, many of these were also clearly
>service=driveway instead of alley, a subtle distinction, but a crucial
>one, in my opinion (driveway implies access=private).  In more rural
>areas (and by no means is this a hard-and-fast delineation), there were
>many similar entries, but tree cover (2/3 of my county) made these
>impossible to distinguish via Bing.  Also, many had a name= tag with an
>empty value.  I'd rather that simply be no name tag at all, so that
>should be an easy improvement to make in any future/additional
>translations.
>
>There are literally thousands of these in my little county (2nd
>smallest geographically in the state) and it would take many hours
>(days) to go through them one by one and Bing compare, which certainly
>would improve OSM's data here.  (I've done similar tedious visual
>comparisons for thousands of polygons and TIGER review before, it is a
>labor of love!)  However, much or even most of these data would need an
>on-the-ground verification, simply because aerial/satellite data,
>whether fresh or not, have too much tree cover to allow such armchair
>mapping.  And, most of these additional data are very likely in highly
>rural areas which are not only difficult to get to, but are obviously
>on private property and (as is very typical around here on those)
>behind gates or "No Trespassing" signs (which I respect).
>
>So, while I find these a potentially rich source of new and/or better
>additional data, it is with great tedium and difficulty that they might
>be vetted/verified in a proper OSM way (cursory, via Bing, and/or fully
>and correctly, "on the ground").  I'm delighted the exercise to
>translate them into an easily-usable-by-OSM way has taken place, but it
>is with a great deal of caution and indeed trepidation that I approach
>and/or allow any new TIGER dataset "easy entry" into our map.
>
>In short:  eyes very wide open, slow going (if any going at all) ahead.
>If your state is included in the list, and you can zoom into your
>county or city, I'd be curious to hear what others might say after they
>take the half-hour or so I did to look and offer similar impressions of
>these data.
>
>SteveA
>California
>___
>Talk-us mailing list
>Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Comparing Tiger 2017 dataset with OSM in a automatedway.

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:00 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea
 wrote:
> Thank you, Tod.  Yes, I MIGHT find a VERY SELECT SUBSET of these data 
> SOMEWHAT useful, as minor amounts of them seem to be accurate and 
> more-up-to-date enough to introduce into OSM.  But certainly not using any 
> sort of automated method.  Essentially, every single datum would need to be 
> human-reviewed, possibly corrected, likely conflated, and for a great many of 
> them, on-the-ground verified.  I'd say "garbage" seems too strong, but "very 
> noisy with a highly limited potential to add some minor value to our map, 
> coupled with great effort to vet, improve and enter the data" seems about 
> right.

This.

An up-to-date TIGER is useful for
(1) identifying errors that the Census Bureau caught in the old TIGER,
and getting somewhat better data for the 40% or so of census tracts
that had stale data in the old TIGER because of some IT glitches at
the Census Bureau.
(2) (Maybe) Getting names for new features that are not in the map
yet, and building a 'things to map' list.

At least in the rural areas around me, TIGER, even TIGER 2017, has a
vaguely hallucinatory quality. It has much better data quality in
town, but where it is nearly correct all seems to be areas that are
pretty well mapped already.

All politics aside, where I have direct familiarity with TIGER, it's a
mess. It's a valuable data source when doing other mapping, a
semi-valuable data source when identifying things that may be missing
from the map, and would add considerable negative value if imported
without the process Steve describes.

All this is without any argument about whether imports are good or bad
for the community. It's unquestionably bad to import data that are
less reliable than what we already have.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Comparing Tiger 2017 dataset with OSM in a automatedway.

[Greg Morgan]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:00 AM, OSM Volunteer stevea <
stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote:

> Thank you, Tod.  Yes, I MIGHT find a VERY SELECT SUBSET of these data
> SOMEWHAT useful, as minor amounts of them seem to be accurate and
> more-up-to-date enough to introduce into OSM.  But certainly not using any
> sort of automated method.  Essentially, every single datum would need to be
> human-reviewed, possibly corrected, likely conflated, and for a great many
> of them, on-the-ground verified.  I'd say "garbage" seems too strong, but
> "very noisy with a highly limited potential to add some minor value to our
> map, coupled with great effort to vet, improve and enter the data" seems
> about right.
>
> SteveA
> California
>
>
Yep! While not good for an import the data is useful for comparison.  I see
where I could pick up some road names and new subdivisions from Badita's
data. A more useful comparison would be an update to Alex Barth's "Better
Than OSM" tiles.  Does anyone on the list know of a friend of a friend at
MapBox?  Would you please ask them to update Alex's work?
https://api.tiles.mapbox.com/v4/lxbarth.647bc246/page.html?access_token=pk.eyJ1IjoibHhiYXJ0aCIsImEiOiJFVXdYcUlvIn0.bbaHTEWlnAwGgyVwJngMdQ#12/33.7449/-112.1031

Regards,
Greg
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Comparing Tiger 2017 dataset with OSM in a automatedway.

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

Thank you, Tod.  Yes, I MIGHT find a VERY SELECT SUBSET of these data SOMEWHAT 
useful, as minor amounts of them seem to be accurate and more-up-to-date enough 
to introduce into OSM.  But certainly not using any sort of automated method.  
Essentially, every single datum would need to be human-reviewed, possibly 
corrected, likely conflated, and for a great many of them, on-the-ground 
verified.  I'd say "garbage" seems too strong, but "very noisy with a highly 
limited potential to add some minor value to our map, coupled with great effort 
to vet, improve and enter the data" seems about right.

SteveA
California


> On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:50 AM, Tod Fitch  wrote:
> In the area I now live in California, my first impression looking at this is 
> that the data is garbage. It looks to me that blindly importing would 
> re-introduce TIGER errors that have been successfully removed. Looking at a 
> tiny area in Arizona where my family still has a house, it is not much better.
> 
> My opinion is that a direct import of this data should not be done at all.
> 
> That said, when helping clean up the chdr reversion mess in Arizona I noticed 
> a number of new subdivisions in the Phoenix metro area where this data set 
> could be useful. But it would need to be done very selectively. For example, 
> there are new roads shown that are not evident in the aerial imagery 
> available to us for OSM. I would not add those unless a ground survey 
> indicated they actually exist. And there are lots that I would characterize 
> as tracks or service roads that have the traditional TIGER residential value.
> 
> Is a null length value even valid? Looking at the raw OSM files I see 
> ‘k="name" v=""’ in a number of places.
> 
> Tod


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Comparing Tiger 2017 dataset with OSM in a automatedway.

[Greg Morgan]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Badita Florin 
wrote:
...

> Did not had time to look at each individual state, but i will share the
> insight for Arizona :
> Feel free to look at the other states.
> And please, if you want me to run this on any public dataset, just tell
> me, I will help you create a translation file, and we can compare any SHP
> with OSM, and get the results.
>
>
Uploaded on the google drive folder Arizona, the result size is 267 MB XML
>
> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B7aOUf0DFRnLU3hUWFNu
> S05JS2c?usp=sharing
>
> There seems to be some new neighborhoods that were constructed/ are being
> constructed added to this TIGER 2017 release.
>

Badita,

Bless your little heart!  Finally, there are some real analysis without
saying imports are bad and they kill the community.  The problem that you
have found is that metro Phoenix is building again--going gang
busters. Phoenix alone just surpassed Philadelphia as the 5th largest city
in the US. Some of the examples you provided look like the subdivisions
that went bankrupt during the subprime rate recession.  Developers are
working these subdivisions again.  You can see a glimpse of the roof tiles
on this subdivision that collapsed during the subprime rate debacle but is
actively being built right now.
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/oEdJEx6gjEBgOjtRtkjkHQ

It is not just roads where the growth and change is happening.  Iconic
buildings--as far as Phoenix goes--are being plowed under for apartment
buildings.
July 2016
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/WDRNcgF6KECHwfsj-qeNBA
October 2017
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/zZXUcxZJAT2UxrlQCyIvsQ
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2016/08/03/new-central-avenue-macayos-open-phoenix-early-2017/88008706/

I would only bore you to death with more examples of both.

Regards,
Greg
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Comparing Tiger 2017 dataset with OSM in a automatedway.

[Tod Fitch]

In the area I now live in California, my first impression looking at this is 
that the data is garbage. It looks to me that blindly importing would 
re-introduce TIGER errors that have been successfully removed. Looking at a 
tiny area in Arizona where my family still has a house, it is not much better.

My opinion is that a direct import of this data should not be done at all.

That said, when helping clean up the chdr reversion mess in Arizona I noticed a 
number of new subdivisions in the Phoenix metro area where this data set could 
be useful. But it would need to be done very selectively. For example, there 
are new roads shown that are not evident in the aerial imagery available to us 
for OSM. I would not add those unless a ground survey indicated they actually 
exist. And there are lots that I would characterize as tracks or service roads 
that have the traditional TIGER residential value.

Is a null length value even valid? Looking at the raw OSM files I see ‘k="name" 
v=""’ in a number of places.

Tod

> On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:00 AM, OSM Volunteer stevea 
>  wrote:
> 
> I don't know where all of this is going, and wanted to see for myself, so I 
> downloaded the California file (the largest one of all) and zoomed in on 
> where I live and am most familiar with, Santa Cruz County.  Thank you for 
> providing the ten states worth of translated data for us to take a look.
> 
> What I found was, um, "interesting."  In urban areas, there were indeed a few 
> highway=service, service=alley ways which Bing confirms are either there, 
> mostly there, or "almost there," as in "slightly offset by a meter or three." 
>  However, many of these were also clearly service=driveway instead of alley, 
> a subtle distinction, but a crucial one, in my opinion (driveway implies 
> access=private).  In more rural areas (and by no means is this a 
> hard-and-fast delineation), there were many similar entries, but tree cover 
> (2/3 of my county) made these impossible to distinguish via Bing.  Also, many 
> had a name= tag with an empty value.  I'd rather that simply be no name tag 
> at all, so that should be an easy improvement to make in any 
> future/additional translations.
> 
> There are literally thousands of these in my little county (2nd smallest 
> geographically in the state) and it would take many hours (days) to go 
> through them one by one and Bing compare, which certainly would improve OSM's 
> data here.  (I've done similar tedious visual comparisons for thousands of 
> polygons and TIGER review before, it is a labor of love!)  However, much or 
> even most of these data would need an on-the-ground verification, simply 
> because aerial/satellite data, whether fresh or not, have too much tree cover 
> to allow such armchair mapping.  And, most of these additional data are very 
> likely in highly rural areas which are not only difficult to get to, but are 
> obviously on private property and (as is very typical around here on those) 
> behind gates or "No Trespassing" signs (which I respect).
> 
> So, while I find these a potentially rich source of new and/or better 
> additional data, it is with great tedium and difficulty that they might be 
> vetted/verified in a proper OSM way (cursory, via Bing, and/or fully and 
> correctly, "on the ground").  I'm delighted the exercise to translate them 
> into an easily-usable-by-OSM way has taken place, but it is with a great deal 
> of caution and indeed trepidation that I approach and/or allow any new TIGER 
> dataset "easy entry" into our map.
> 
> In short:  eyes very wide open, slow going (if any going at all) ahead.  If 
> your state is included in the list, and you can zoom into your county or 
> city, I'd be curious to hear what others might say after they take the 
> half-hour or so I did to look and offer similar impressions of these data.
> 
> SteveA
> California
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Comparing Tiger 2017 dataset with OSM in a automatedway.

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

I don't know where all of this is going, and wanted to see for myself, so I 
downloaded the California file (the largest one of all) and zoomed in on where 
I live and am most familiar with, Santa Cruz County.  Thank you for providing 
the ten states worth of translated data for us to take a look.

What I found was, um, "interesting."  In urban areas, there were indeed a few 
highway=service, service=alley ways which Bing confirms are either there, 
mostly there, or "almost there," as in "slightly offset by a meter or three."  
However, many of these were also clearly service=driveway instead of alley, a 
subtle distinction, but a crucial one, in my opinion (driveway implies 
access=private).  In more rural areas (and by no means is this a hard-and-fast 
delineation), there were many similar entries, but tree cover (2/3 of my 
county) made these impossible to distinguish via Bing.  Also, many had a name= 
tag with an empty value.  I'd rather that simply be no name tag at all, so that 
should be an easy improvement to make in any future/additional translations.

There are literally thousands of these in my little county (2nd smallest 
geographically in the state) and it would take many hours (days) to go through 
them one by one and Bing compare, which certainly would improve OSM's data 
here.  (I've done similar tedious visual comparisons for thousands of polygons 
and TIGER review before, it is a labor of love!)  However, much or even most of 
these data would need an on-the-ground verification, simply because 
aerial/satellite data, whether fresh or not, have too much tree cover to allow 
such armchair mapping.  And, most of these additional data are very likely in 
highly rural areas which are not only difficult to get to, but are obviously on 
private property and (as is very typical around here on those) behind gates or 
"No Trespassing" signs (which I respect).

So, while I find these a potentially rich source of new and/or better 
additional data, it is with great tedium and difficulty that they might be 
vetted/verified in a proper OSM way (cursory, via Bing, and/or fully and 
correctly, "on the ground").  I'm delighted the exercise to translate them into 
an easily-usable-by-OSM way has taken place, but it is with a great deal of 
caution and indeed trepidation that I approach and/or allow any new TIGER 
dataset "easy entry" into our map.

In short:  eyes very wide open, slow going (if any going at all) ahead.  If 
your state is included in the list, and you can zoom into your county or city, 
I'd be curious to hear what others might say after they take the half-hour or 
so I did to look and offer similar impressions of these data.

SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Comparing Tiger 2017 dataset with OSM in a automatedway.

[Mike N]

On 10/12/2017 9:52 AM, Ian Dees wrote:

The vast majority of roads seem to be correctly missing from OSM.


 Along that line of thought - for cases where local government data is 
not open, I'd find it useful to detect where a name changed in TIGER 
from previous year, or a road was added.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Comparing Tiger 2017 dataset with OSM in a automatedway.

[Badita Florin]

I started processing, State by State, the Tiger 2017 dataset, because i get
less errors from overpass this way then if i process in bulk of 10 states.

The first state is Alabama.It took around 5 hours to complete,and it shows
over 20.000 possible ways that are not added in OSM.
The total length of the ways is 5042 km, or 3133 miles.
The xml size is 36Mb, and can be found in this folder.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B7aOUf0DFRnLU3hUWFNuS05JS2c?
usp=sharing

There are 5 35x35 miles tiles missing from the data.

Be mindful that this is the raw output, and even if Tiger 2017 is better
then older versions, there are still a lot of bad data in Tiger.

I expect more then 50% of the data to not be good for mapping into OSM.
Also, you can filter this data-set and keep just the road with the names,
that could be more important roads compared to the ones that don`t have a
name.

@joe, regarding the dataset for the twin cities, if you can create/provide
a translation file for the shapefile, i can run it and post the results in
the folder.

Some examples here

https://github.com/ToeBee/ogr2osm-translations








On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Ian Dees <ian.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, it'd be great to do this. I started a project to track open road
> centerlines like this on GitHub here: https://github.com/osmla
> b/centerlines
>
> In theory, we could download that data and then do the same process using
> the presumably higher quality road data.
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Joe Sapletal <joe.saple...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>> This is really cool.  Can I suggest for the Twin Cities metro area
>> someone doing something similar with the Metro Regional Centerlines
>> Collaborative Local Centerlines (MRCC)?  I know that Dakota County hasn’t
>> submitted centerlines to Tiger in a couple of years, but will be for the
>> next update.  Not sure about the other counties though.  There very well
>> may be areas that the MRCC will be a better source than the Tiger data.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-mn-state-metrogis-trans-mr
>> cc-centerlines
>>
>>
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Ian Dees <ian.d...@gmail.com>
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, October 11, 2017 10:25 AM
>> *To: *Badita Florin <baditaflo...@gmail.com>
>> *Cc: *talk-us@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap <talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
>> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-us] Comparing Tiger 2017 dataset with OSM in a
>> automatedway.
>>
>>
>>
>> It would be interesting to see what differences CYGNUS would turn up.
>> What would the output of CYGNUS be?
>>
>>
>>
>> I put together the TIGER 2017 layer that's in the editors right now. I'll
>> work on writing up how I did it later today.
>>
>>
>>
>> Basically: I used tiger-tiles (https://github.com/iandees/tiger-tiles)
>> to generate a vector tiles database with expanded road names from TIGER
>> 2017. Then I downloaded an osm-qa-tiles (https://osmlab.github.io/osm-
>> qa-tiles/) file for the United States and ran osmlint's tigerDelta (
>> https://github.com/osmlab/osmlint/tree/master/validators/tigerDelta) to
>> find the segments that had different geometry. The output was then ran
>> through Tippecanoe to generate a vector tileset and posted to Mapbox as the
>> low zoom red features.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Badita Florin <baditaflo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, i wanted to ask if there will be interest around comparing TIGER 2017
>> with what we have in OSM, using CYGNUS, in a automated way.
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/36746
>>
>>
>>
>> On top of cygnus, i have developed shgp2cygnus, were you can place any
>> shapefile, any size, you provide a translation file, and, in the end, you
>> get a list with all the ways that are in the TIGER dataset, but not in OSM.
>>
>> This would be something useful for the community ?
>>
>>
>>
>> I don`t know if somebody is already doing something similar, or what is
>> the status ? Were can i read more ?
>>
>> I knoiw that the TIGER 2017 Overlay in JOSM shows in red the roads that
>> are not in OSM, but are in TIger 2017.
>>
>> But I don`t know were to read more, and if the data is accessible to
>> download directly, not just show as a WMS Layer.
>>
>>
>>
>> It will take around 7-14 days to process all USA”
>>
>>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Comparing Tiger 2017 dataset with OSM in a automatedway.

[Joe Sapletal]

This is really cool.  Can I suggest for the Twin Cities metro area someone 
doing something similar with the Metro Regional Centerlines Collaborative Local 
Centerlines (MRCC)?  I know that Dakota County hasn’t submitted centerlines to 
Tiger in a couple of years, but will be for the next update.  Not sure about 
the other counties though.  There very well may be areas that the MRCC will be 
a better source than the Tiger data.

https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-mn-state-metrogis-trans-mrcc-centerlines

Joe

From: Ian Dees
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 10:25 AM
To: Badita Florin
Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Comparing Tiger 2017 dataset with OSM in a automatedway.

It would be interesting to see what differences CYGNUS would turn up. What 
would the output of CYGNUS be?

I put together the TIGER 2017 layer that's in the editors right now. I'll work 
on writing up how I did it later today.

Basically: I used tiger-tiles (https://github.com/iandees/tiger-tiles) to 
generate a vector tiles database with expanded road names from TIGER 2017. Then 
I downloaded an osm-qa-tiles (https://osmlab.github.io/osm-qa-tiles/) file for 
the United States and ran osmlint's tigerDelta 
(https://github.com/osmlab/osmlint/tree/master/validators/tigerDelta) to find 
the segments that had different geometry. The output was then ran through 
Tippecanoe to generate a vector tileset and posted to Mapbox as the low zoom 
red features.

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Badita Florin <baditaflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, i wanted to ask if there will be interest around comparing TIGER 2017 with 
what we have in OSM, using CYGNUS, in a automated way. 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/36746
 
On top of cygnus, i have developed shgp2cygnus, were you can place any 
shapefile, any size, you provide a translation file, and, in the end, you get a 
list with all the ways that are in the TIGER dataset, but not in OSM.
This would be something useful for the community ? 
 
I don`t know if somebody is already doing something similar, or what is the 
status ? Were can i read more ?
I knoiw that the TIGER 2017 Overlay in JOSM shows in red the roads that are not 
in OSM, but are in TIger 2017. 
But I don`t know were to read more, and if the data is accessible to download 
directly, not just show as a WMS Layer.
 
It will take around 7-14 days to process all USA”

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us