Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
> http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/utils/import/tiger2osm/shape_to_osm-Tiger.py > We'll work on making sure that these data look good and I think some > people have some plans on how to get these integrated a bit at a time. Thanks to those who worked on the namefinder - it worked GREAT when I tried it today. (THANKS to those who created the new namefinder!) It properly identified my house by Hamlet, City, County, etc without my including any of that information in the house number or street.With that in mind, the script tags everything with: I believe people have been saying that this information is not necessary, and is_in is also not necessary for 99% of cases, so we can save space by not including that for the Karlsruhe Schema. (But I don't know how the namefinder works). ___ 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 Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Mike N. wrote: >> http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/utils/import/tiger2osm/shape_to_osm-Tiger.py > >> We'll work on making sure that these data look good and I think some >> people have some plans on how to get these integrated a bit at a time. > > Thanks to those who worked on the namefinder - it worked GREAT when I > tried it today. (THANKS to those who created the new namefinder!) It > properly identified my house by Hamlet, City, County, etc without my > including any of that information in the house number or street. With > that in mind, the script tags everything with: > > > > > > > > I believe people have been saying that this information is not necessary, > and is_in is also not necessary for 99% of cases, so we can save space by > not including that for the Karlsruhe Schema. (But I don't know how the > namefinder works). You gotta have the addr:street information somewhere. ___ 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
> You gotta have the addr:street information somewhere. Oops! Yes, that should be the minimum required. ___ 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 : >> 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] [OSM-talk] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
On Sat, 2009-11-14 at 13:49 +0100, andrzej zaborowski wrote: > > 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. I agree that this is the optimal thing to do. But it's really hard, so I'm not volunteering to take it on. If there's anyone out there braver than I, please speak up. :) -- Dave ___ 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] [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] [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 : >> 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
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 9:05 PM, andrzej zaborowski 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 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
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 wrote: > On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 9:05 PM, andrzej zaborowski > 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 > 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] [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
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
On Nov 14, 2009, at 11:16 AM, Dave Hansen wrote: >> 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. > > I agree that this is the optimal thing to do. But it's really hard, so > I'm not volunteering to take it on. If there's anyone out there braver > than I, please speak up. :) I hear you but for the purposes of just thinking about it... I think it might be a lot easier than we think. Forget matching TIGER IDs... if I know a line segment goes from 15th & Valencia to 16th & Valencia in TIGER then all I need to find in the same set of points in the OSM dataset which isn't going to be super hard. I find 15th, I find Valencia, see if they cross at some node. Same with the other intersection, then see if those nodes are on a way that joins both of them and find the points in between. And as long as the geometry isn't radically different then I can match up the points. I think the major problem would be divided highways where one way is now two ways with different directions, but that shouldn't be super hard to do. Yours &c. Steve ___ 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
2009/11/16 Andy Allan > > Yes. Please don't include "this point is within such-and-such a > polygon" data onto the point itself, it's redundant information and > not helpful. When a county border is changed by legislation, then > moving the border of the county should be sufficient for a mapper. > Having to check and update 10,000 address nodes would be error-prone. > > +1 is_in is completely useless especially as we improve the polygons like county and administrative areas. I very strongly with Andy here on this topic, especially considering how administrative areas are known to change in different countries. Emilie Laffray ___ 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
Andy Allan writes: > On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > 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. > > It did more harm than good. No, it didn't. I didn't start mapping until TIGER was imported. Why? Because I knew that a lot of the work had already been done. Why should I waste my time, as you folks in the UK have **been forced** to waste your time reinventing an existing map? We have a public domain map which we could start with. Don't try to cast your impediment as an advantage. It wasn't, and our advantage (sensible government policy) isn't an impediment. -- --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] [OSM-talk] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Andy Allan wrote: > I'd love to know which map has an > accurate pedestrian routing network that is collected as such and not > a derived interpretation of other base maps. C'mon, this is the United States. A blank map is an accurate pedestrian routing network. ;) ___ 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 Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:14:37 -0500 Anthony wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Andy Allan > wrote: > > I'd love to know which map has an > > accurate pedestrian routing network that is collected as such and > > not a derived interpretation of other base maps. > > C'mon, this is the United States. A blank map is an accurate > pedestrian routing network. ;) I'd just like to pipe in that I wouldn't have done any of the mapping I've done without the TIGER data, and it wouldn't be very practical for me to fix along my tracked routes without having the names of streets already there (with fixes for abbriviations or changing name_1 to name if name=United States Highway *) At least my city looks pretty good now, with bike paths, straight roads, proper intersections on the map, schools mapped, pedestrian walkways in many parks, all of which is not from the TIGER data but is doable with the aerial imagery and help from the TIGER data. I did a little fixing on that 250 cities project.I wouldn't have connected routes I've never been on if the TIGER data didn't say it was an interstate. I don't see how that would have been a smaller effort without TIGER (and certainly you'd have a lot less to connect in that case) -- Joseph Booker signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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 16 Nov 2009, at 7:14 , Anthony wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Andy Allan wrote: >> I'd love to know which map has an >> accurate pedestrian routing network that is collected as such and not >> a derived interpretation of other base maps. > > C'mon, this is the United States. A blank map is an accurate > pedestrian routing network. ;) > you are talking about a different US. I am constantly forced to stop at Violators will be prosecuted, signs. > ___ > 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 16 Nov 2009, at 7:05 , Andy Allan wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: >> Andy Allan writes: >> > On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: >> > >> > > 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. >> > >> > It did more harm than good. >> >> No, it didn't. I didn't start mapping until TIGER was imported. Why? >> Because I knew that a lot of the work had already been done. Why >> should I waste my time, as you folks in the UK have **been forced** to >> waste your time reinventing an existing map? > > Sorry, which map have we reinvented? I'd love to know which map has an > accurate pedestrian routing network that is collected as such and not > a derived interpretation of other base maps. Or maybe you think OSM is > just a road network with some POIs? Or are you again thinking that the > work we've done in OSM is actually inferior to the work available from > the Ordnance Survey? > >> We have a public domain >> map which we could start with. > > If all you're aiming for is a slightly better version of TIGER, then > it was worth starting with TIGER and that's pretty much all you'll > get. Oh, look, that's what happened. > Absolutely, "me to" approach. And why have all the hassle with community, vandalism … every GIS expert can build a DB with Tiger data. If we don't see osm as a social and community project with a dynamic entirely different from traditional GIS i't a wast of time. compare US with Europe and you will cry, compare it with some places in Africa, India Asia … where people can barely afford GPS and Computers it's a shame how bad the US map is. >> Don't try to cast your impediment as an advantage. It wasn't, and our >> advantage (sensible government policy) isn't an impediment. > > So let me get this straight, your public domain road shapefiles have > been an advantage? And therefore OSM is better in the US than in > Germany? Geez, we're all sure hurting from a lack of imports over > here. I don't think you've really understood just *how* far behind you > are (precisely because of this "advantage", imo) and how much slower > things are progressing on your side of the Atlantic. > > So please, turn away from imports and work on getting mappers in > charge, especially out pounding the streets. The outcome will be much, > much better in the end, and that end will come much, much quicker. > I wouldn't go that far. As long as imports are done by active mappers in their local area and they take responsibility and fix all problems they create with the import. > Cheers, > Andy > > ___ > 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] [OSM-talk] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 15:05 +, Andy Allan wrote: > So please, turn away from imports and work on getting mappers in > charge, especially out pounding the streets. The outcome will be much, > much better in the end, and that end will come much, much quicker. I think TIGER was a success if only because of all the Europeans we tricked into fixing our roads for us. :) -- Dave ___ 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
Andy Allan writes: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: > > should I waste my time, as you folks in the UK have **been forced** to > > waste your time reinventing an existing map? > > Sorry, which map have we reinvented? If OSM is better than OS, then you've reinvented it -- but that work was only necessary because your country doesn't put its map into the public domain. If it had, then you would have started with it, and would now be arguing with the governments of X, Y, and Z that they should put their map data into the public domain. > > We have a public domain > > map which we could start with. > > If all you're aiming for is a slightly better version of TIGER, then > it was worth starting with TIGER and that's pretty much all you'll > get. Oh, look, that's what happened. Oh, look, we have 99% of all roads in the US in OSM. Can you say that about any other country besides the exceptional Germany and the (dare I say it) imported Netherlands? > > Don't try to cast your impediment as an advantage. It wasn't, and our > > advantage (sensible government policy) isn't an impediment. > > So let me get this straight, your public domain road shapefiles have > been an advantage? And therefore OSM is better in the US than in > Germany? Andy, what you said does not follow logically. "impediment" and "advantage" refer to an amount of work, not quality. It was easier to get to where we are now, than it was for Germany to get to an equivalent state (which was probably three years ago). Germany has a three year head start. Naturally that's reflected in the quality of OSM: much better in Germany than the US. > Geez, we're all sure hurting from a lack of imports over here. I > don't think you've really understood just *how* far behind you are > (precisely because of this "advantage", imo) and how much slower > things are progressing on your side of the Atlantic. I don't think you understand how far we've come with so few people and so little effort. > So please, turn away from imports and work on getting mappers in > charge, especially out pounding the streets. The outcome will be much, > much better in the end, and that end will come much, much quicker. What's the rush? -- --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] [OSM-talk] Karlruhe Scheme addressing ways from 2009 TIGER data
Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > > On 16 Nov 2009, at 7:14 , Anthony wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Andy Allan wrote: >>> I'd love to know which map has an >>> accurate pedestrian routing network that is collected as such and not >>> a derived interpretation of other base maps. >> >> C'mon, this is the United States. A blank map is an accurate >> pedestrian routing network. ;) >> > > you are talking about a different US. I am constantly forced to stop at > Violators will be prosecuted, signs. That's a new one...round Marion County, they usually say "Tresspassers will be shot, then violated" ___ 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
Dave Hansen wrote: > On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 15:05 +, Andy Allan wrote: >> So please, turn away from imports and work on getting mappers in >> charge, especially out pounding the streets. The outcome will be much, >> much better in the end, and that end will come much, much quicker. > > I think TIGER was a success if only because of all the Europeans we > tricked into fixing our roads for us. :) Now if we could do that for the pavement and bicycle signage on Washington's I5... ___ 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 Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > >> >> On 16 Nov 2009, at 7:14 , Anthony wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Andy Allan wrote: I'd love to know which map has an accurate pedestrian routing network that is collected as such and not a derived interpretation of other base maps. >>> >>> C'mon, this is the United States. A blank map is an accurate >>> pedestrian routing network. ;) >>> >> >> you are talking about a different US. I am constantly forced to stop at >> Violators will be prosecuted, signs. > > That's a new one...round Marion County, they usually say "Tresspassers > will be shot, then violated" Alternately, Prosecutors will be violated. ___ 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
Sensible government policy? When did that happen? My local county wants $10,680.00 for the political GIS data, and it's got a non-redistributable, non-commercial license on top of that. Aah - my tax dollars at play. On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: > > Don't try to cast your impediment as an advantage. It wasn't, and our > advantage (sensible government policy) isn't an impediment. > > -- > --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 > ___ 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
Oh, and $5/disk to burn it to DVD On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 1:07 AM, Chris Hunter wrote: > Sensible government policy? When did that happen? My local county wants > $10,680.00 for the political GIS data, and it's got a non-redistributable, > non-commercial license on top of that. Aah - my tax dollars at play. > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: > >> >> Don't try to cast your impediment as an advantage. It wasn't, and our >> advantage (sensible government policy) isn't an impediment. >> >> -- >> --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 >> > > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
