I do not think there is anything to gain from the counties that are listed
to not be improved. My county (orange county fl.) is one that was NOT
improved yet, and in QGIS it looks to be unmodified from the original tiger
import. There are not any new tags in the data that would add anything
eithe
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 20:39 +1100, Nick Hocking wrote:
> On a more infalmatory note, I checked with yahoo and google and it
> seems that in a LOT or areas more than half of the tiger roads don't
> actually exist. The mappers must have been paid by the road :-) Is
> tiger 2007 any better in this r
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe it could be done like Dave handled the last import--if anyone is
> concerned about conflicts, they can handle their county themselves.
Hear Hear!
Cheers,
Adam
___
Talk-us
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Nick Hocking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> "Well, #2 would be nice but it would be tricky to detect a collision with
> an
> existing way. Frankly, because the first TIGER import was done, the number
> of completely new ways that would be added in a new import would b
"Well, #2 would be nice but it would be tricky to detect a collision with an
existing way. Frankly, because the first TIGER import was done, the number
of completely new ways that would be added in a new import would be small,
and the number of those ways that conflict with ways added manually by
e
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 2:39 AM, Nick Hocking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> I consider that your bulk upload script is in exactly the same boat
> as an automaitc edit script. As such I think that it should adhere
> to the code of conduct for automatic editors, one point of which is
> to respect othe
I consider that your bulk upload script is in exactly the same boat
as an automaitc edit script. As such I think that it should adhere
to the code of conduct for automatic editors, one point of which is
to respect others' edits.
To me, this means, don't revert or corrupt others' edits.
To achieve
On Sat, 2008-10-25 at 10:37 +1100, Nick Hocking wrote:
> I'm firmly convinced that automatic uploads should only go into areas
> where there are NO user edited nodes or ways. Other updates need to be
> done manully to avoid data corruption.
You have absolutely shown a number of cases where there w
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 12:37 AM, Nick Hocking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> "Again, let's calm down a little bit. Were you around for the last
> import? Did you see how I handled data conflicts in that one? Was
> there a problem there that needs fixing this time around?"
>
> Yes I think there we
If by "not disturbing existing edits" you include the
overlaying of other data on top of existing ones,
then I completely agree.
Also there are countless non-existant roads crossing
the interstates. These have had to be deleted and I
agree, must never come back.
And yes I agree that any altered t
Ahh but if the tiger data was deleted or modified a comparison to the
original would show that, and that way it can be skipped. So either it
isn't fixed now, or already has been. Either way I think the new import
should default to not disturb the existing edits. Granted even more
checking and "s
Dale,
I don't think it's reasonable to expect mappers to continually go over the
areas
they have contributed to in order to remove obosolete ways bulk-loaded
over their own.
I think it best to hold off more editing untill the last tiger import is
complete.
Heck - the 2015 bulk upload may even hav
Steve
What would constitute "significant edits?
Let's say I fix up the interstate for the entire length of its
run through a county but make no other improvements.
Are these "significant edits or would I find Tiger's
version of an interstate reapplied over my own.
_
Obviously some heated feelings involved for some regarding their hard work
being messed up. This is understandable, and I believe understood by Dave
as well.
To my knowledge the original tiger, and plans for this import will not
delete ANY user created ways. That is why there are 2 ways in some a
Please see Golden Canyon Road in Death Valley.
It shows the problems with auto uploads.
I've put my original response in a diary entry.
Not sure why it kept getting truncated.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.o
I'll keep trying one paragraph at at time if necessary - sorry 'bout this.
If it fails then I'll write a diary entry.
>From my own experience I noticed some problems as well.
My travels took me through my second most favourite place on earth - Death
Valley.
When I went to edit in the tracks I no
3rd try - last two posts apprear to have been truncated.
"Again, let's calm down a little bit. Were you around for the last
import? Did you see how I handled data conflicts in that one? Was
there a problem there that needs fixing this time around?"
Yes I think there were problems. There ha
I'll try again - last post appreas to have been truncated.
"Again, let's calm down a little bit. Were you around for the last
import? Did you see how I handled data conflicts in that one? Was
there a problem there that needs fixing this time around?"
Yes I think there were problems. There h
"Again, let's calm down a little bit. Were you around for the last
import? Did you see how I handled data conflicts in that one? Was
there a problem there that needs fixing this time around?"
Yes I think there were problems. There have been some diary entries
bemoaning the fact that their edit
On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 22:09 +1100, Nick Hocking wrote:
> Can you confirm that any bulk upload of Tiger 2007 date will not
> erase or be overlaid over/under/alongside any existing user edits.
> On my last US trip I've got about 6000 miles of gps tracks. I've only
> edited in a few hundred miles
Russ Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ian Dees writes:
> > I don't agree. If the "reviewed" flag was changed to yes without any change
> > to the imported data, then that means the new TIGER data will be better
> than
> > the old ("reviewed") data.
>
> Or worse. Different != improved.
Th
Ian Dees writes:
> I don't agree. If the "reviewed" flag was changed to yes without any change
> to the imported data, then that means the new TIGER data will be better than
> the old ("reviewed") data.
Or worse. Different != improved.
--
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com | Unr
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Russ Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nick Hocking writes:
> > Can you confirm that any bulk upload of Tiger 2007 date will not erase
> or be
> > overlaid over/under/alongside any existing user edits.
>
> I'm not Dave, but I'm quite sure that 1) he won't be sm
Nick Hocking writes:
> Can you confirm that any bulk upload of Tiger 2007 date will not erase or be
> overlaid over/under/alongside any existing user edits.
I'm not Dave, but I'm quite sure that 1) he won't be smashing any user
edits, and 2) I don't support the smashing of my edits either. I've
Hi Dave,
Can you confirm that any bulk upload of Tiger 2007 date will not erase or be
overlaid over/under/alongside any existing user edits.
On my last US trip I've got about 6000 miles of gps tracks. I've only
edited in a few hundred miles of them so far but am reluctant to do any more
work if
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 2008-10-19 at 11:33 -0700, Alan Brown wrote:
>> > Then, decide how if/when it is appropriate to write over the old
>> TIGER
>> > stuff with new. Or, to merge it somehow.
>>
>> Be very, very careful here.
>>
>> Conflation is a difficult thing. I
The improvement of tiger data accuracy I think was about 2/3 to 3/4 done in
the 2007 set. They listed what had not been improved yet by county
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/tgrshp2007/tgrshp07nomtaip.txt So
skipping those this time for road data seems probable.
I would guess another big st
On Sun, 2008-10-19 at 14:29 -0400, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Dave Hansen writes:
> > Then, decide how if/when it is appropriate to write over the old TIGER
> > stuff with new. Or, to merge it somehow.
>
> I've updated it in some cases. Perhaps only update if the data is
> unchecked?
Sure, that wou
On Sun, 2008-10-19 at 11:33 -0700, Alan Brown wrote:
> > Then, decide how if/when it is appropriate to write over the old
> TIGER
> > stuff with new. Or, to merge it somehow.
>
> Be very, very careful here.
>
> Conflation is a difficult thing. I used to work at Tele Atlas, and
> there was a maj
> Then, decide how if/when it is appropriate to write over the old TIGER
> stuff with new. Or, to merge it somehow.
Be very, very careful here.
Conflation is a difficult thing. I used to work at Tele Atlas, and there was a
major project to conflate Tele Atlas North American data and GDT data
Dave Hansen writes:
> Then, decide how if/when it is appropriate to write over the old TIGER
> stuff with new. Or, to merge it somehow.
I've updated it in some cases. Perhaps only update if the data is
unchecked?
--
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com | Unregulation is a slippery
On Sun, 2008-10-19 at 11:25 -0700, Karl Newman wrote:
> Ah. Quite a trick... I seem to recall that somebody had wanted to do
> that earlier, but I think they got discouraged by the difficulty.
Well, time may have made me forget what a pain the original import was.
We'll see how far I get this time
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-10-19 at 11:10 -0700, Karl Newman wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Has anyone looked at importing the TIGER 2007 data yet? I was
> > going
On Sun, 2008-10-19 at 11:10 -0700, Karl Newman wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anyone looked at importing the TIGER 2007 data yet? I was
> going to
> start coding up the conversion utilities to get started. It
>
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anyone looked at importing the TIGER 2007 data yet? I was going to
> start coding up the conversion utilities to get started. It appears
> that this shapefile format may have existing OSM converters out there.
> Anyon
Has anyone looked at importing the TIGER 2007 data yet? I was going to
start coding up the conversion utilities to get started. It appears
that this shapefile format may have existing OSM converters out there.
Anyone want to admit to having one? ;)
-- Dave
_
36 matches
Mail list logo
