On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Ian Dees <ian.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > > First of all, can we agree as a group to hold off on importing or > applying > > any TIGER 2010 data until we come up with a way to apply changes in a > > uniform and somewhat organized manner? > > I don't see why TIGER 2010 should be treated differently from any > other imports. If you have data that you're sure is more accurate > than what's already there, and are using well-established tags, then > go ahead and import. If you're not sure if your data is more accurate > than what's already there, don't import. If you are making up your > own tags, then talk about it first. >
I can't think of any US, national-level imports (other than the original TIGER import, perhaps) that have gone well. I know because I started or performed several of them: county borders, NHD, etc. Local-level imports of data from counties or states are quite a bit easier to deal with, so I'm proposing we work on getting this national-level one closer to correct. > > > Having said that: let's start a thread here about getting the TIGER data > > moving along. What steps can we take to move the shapefiles in to OSM > > format? How can we collaborate on the mapping to OSM tags? > > What is it you want to import from TIGER 2010 in the first place? I'm > not convinced there's any feasible way to import TIGER 2010 while > guaranteeing that the import is more accurate than what's already > there. > In the areas I've spot-checked, TIGER 2010 has better resolution and more road data than untouched TIGER-imported OSM data. I have yet to spot-check areas that have been edited by OSM members.
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us