At 2012-06-08 13:49, stevea wrote:
I discern a vague remap plan ordering. If you can, please sharpen this up
or correct it if it is outright wrong:
1) "The redaction bot" (still being written) will do much (to "ease in"
the license change),
Not sure what you mean by "ease in" here. It will return much of the area
that was touched by non-agreeing users to TIGER05 state, which is probably
pretty bad.
2) "Nudge nodes to the location where they belong" is smartly next,
somewhat unspecified as to how/where,
"Nudge" is not the right word. Re-align thousands of ways is more accurate,
and man-years of work.
3) Perhaps update with TIGER 2011 data in select areas, also unspecified
as to exactly where.
I only mentioned re-import for areas that were only touched by non-agreeing
contributors, and nobody else, and the idea was to do it before the
redaction, to clean those areas. Thinking about it, though, I guess it
doesn't matter whether it happens before or after redaction for such an area.
I don't find too much value in trying to apply TIGER11 to areas that have
already been surveyed/corrected by people, since, while it's geometry is
better, human alignment to Bing is still better. It also seems to have
newly-introduced errors in it. I recently used it as a reference for Fort
Irwin, CA, and I found there were naming and other errors in TIGER11 that
were not in TIGER05. When trying to use it as a naming reference in other
areas, I've found it not particularly authoritative (i.e. as likely to be
wrong as right when there is a naming conflict among sources).
--
Alan Mintz <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
