On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Ian Dees <ian.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > > That seems to me like a good argument *against* importing TIGER in a > uniform and somewhat organized manner. >
I disagree. The point was that previous imports have not been organized or uniform at all which helped lead to their failure. The original TIGER import was the closest, probably. > > > In the areas I've spot-checked, TIGER 2010 has better resolution and more > > road data than untouched TIGER-imported OSM data. > > How much of that is there, anyway? > Look at the TIGER edited map. There is *lots* of untouched TIGER data in OSM: http://open.mapquestapi.com/tigerviewer/index.html?zoom=9&lat=40.07546&lon=-76.329999&layers=B
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
