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

2017-10-26 Thread 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

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

2017-10-26 Thread 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

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

2017-10-26 Thread 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

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

2017-10-26 Thread 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

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

2017-10-26 Thread 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

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

2017-10-26 Thread 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

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

2017-10-26 Thread 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

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

2017-10-26 Thread 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 >

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

2017-10-26 Thread 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

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

2017-10-26 Thread 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.