On 1/6/2013 7:30 AM, Alex Barth wrote:
This could be achieved e. g. by overlaying a light, opaque OSM highway layer
with a contrasting TIGER layer, only exposing TIGER 12 geometry where it
differs from OSM.
Here is a TIGER 12 vs OSM comparison. They cyan inner arc exists in
TIGER 12 but n
On 1/6/2013 7:30 AM, Alex Barth wrote:
This could be achieved e. g. by overlaying a light, opaque OSM highway
layer with a contrasting TIGER layer, only exposing TIGER 12 geometry
where it differs from OSM.
Oops, forgot the link:
http://greenvilleopenmap.info/TIGER12vsOSM.jpg
Here is a T
These are based off of Lambertus's work here:
http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl
If you have questions or comments about these maps, please feel
free to ask. However, please do not send me private mail. The
odds are, someone else will have the same questions, and by
asking on the talk-us@ l
On Jan 6, 2013, at 11:28 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
>
> I've done this before and it works great for ~z10+. Some more processing
> needs to be done for the lower zoom levels so that we can display an overview
> to make it easier to find problematic areas.
>
Any particular thoughts on what kind of p
On Jan 6, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Mike N wrote:
> On 1/6/2013 11:37 AM, Mike N wrote:
>> I like the idea of a TIGER 07 vs 12 comparison only being used as a
>> trigger. If you compare TIGER 12 vs OSM, it will highlight all the
>> TIGER 07 artifact roads that were removed because they were in error
It would be awesome to include the land ownership data from BLM especially
if we could do it for the whole US. Unfortunately that is probably not
something that people would want to add because of the conflicts with other
data. I wonder if we could include it on a limited basis or only include
cert
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Nathan Mixter wrote:
> It would be awesome to include the land ownership data from BLM especially
> if we could do it for the whole US. Unfortunately that is probably not
> something that people would want to add because of the conflicts with other
> data. I wonder
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
>
> On Jan 6, 2013, at 11:28 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
> >
> > I've done this before and it works great for ~z10+. Some more processing
> needs to be done for the lower zoom levels so that we can display an
> overview to make it easier to find problema
On Jan 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Alex Barth wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
>
>> On 1/4/13 1:31 PM, Michal Migurski wrote:
>>> Interesting—how would you characterize "bad" roads? One characteristic of
>>> crappy TIGER data is road wiggliness, is that what you mean?
>>
>> t
On Monday, January 7, 2013, Ian Dees wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Nathan Mixter
>
> > wrote:
>
>> It would be awesome to include the land ownership data from BLM
>> especially if we could do it for the whole US. Unfortunately that is
>> probably not something that people would want t
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Monday, January 7, 2013, Ian Dees wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Nathan Mixter wrote:
>>
>>> It would be awesome to include the land ownership data from BLM
>>> especially if we could do it for the whole US. Unfortunately that
Isn't that true of all data in the database?
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>> On Monday, January 7, 2013, Ian Dees wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Nathan Mixter wrote:
>>>
It would be awesome to includ
Some thoughts supporting the inclusion of this data:
It seems that it is just about as unlikely that state, county and city
boundaries will be improved, but they are in OSM.
Some improvement may be possible, as the boundaries to Federal land are
often demarcated with signs or survey monuments. I
Some OSM Editors have spent time improving at least county borders.
A core part of the discussion is ownership. If BLM data is added to the
OSM DB, who are the individuals within the community that will take active
ownership for keeping the data quality high and updated as BLM issues
changes, or
On 1/7/13 10:37 PM, the Old Topo Depot wrote:
We do have an issue with US state and county borders, as some are missing,
incorrect, incomplete or incorrectly tagged. Perhaps we can organize a
cleanse the state and county borders project to improve the data quality
and currentness.
i would lik
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Jeff Meyer wrote:
> Isn't that true of all data in the database?
OSM is built on surveyors doing surveys. That is we have people who go
out and walk around with GPSes, or maps, and manually survey what's on
the ground. Then when a second person goes to the same are
I know that the TIGER 2012 overlay available in JOSM has been very helpful and
I think that a combination of a) increasing awareness of this overlay and b)
making the overlay available in Potlatch would go a long way toward leveraging
TIGER 2012. In general, I think it is not the geometry which
> We just had this conversation a couple threads ago. This sort of land
> ownership border doesn't really belong in OSM because we can't improve it.
>
In OSM as a whole, or just in the US? When I peruse the various
hiking/path/trail tagging portions of the Wiki, I found this:
" Since the tagging
My apologies - my real point was that it doesn't seem that rules are being
applied equally across different data sets.
For example, requiring that any data imported into OSM have a lifetime
maintenance plan seems like something that we don't require of *any* OSM
data entry. Most data is entered wi
Full ack to to what Serge and Ian mentioned already. In addition I checked the
metadata and this data is of questionable accuracy and shouldn't be added alone
for this reason.
"Data set now is a mix of scale, tolerances, and vintage, ranging from 1994 to
2006, line work ranging from GCDB to 24K
> So there too, is a potential win for OSM. We could rely on current, highly
> accurate public domain boundry data and use that for rendering, geolocation
> and other places, while keeping it out of the OSM dataset.
Please expand on this. There are already communities around Disaster
Relief, etc.
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Jeff Meyer wrote:
> All of the rules about observability and verifiability apply to country and
> state borders, as well, as Mike states, but we include them and somehow
> improve them.
Have we improved them? Being the last user to touch about 35% of all
county bo
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Jeff Meyer wrote:
> > All of the rules about observability and verifiability apply to country
> and
> > state borders, as well, as Mike states, but we include them and somehow
> > improve them.
>
> Have we imp
23 matches
Mail list logo
