On 3/15/2015 8:53 AM, Clifford Snow wrote:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Alex Barth <a...@mapbox.com
<mailto:a...@mapbox.com>> wrote:
Here's a map showing where TIGER is better than OSM:
https://api.tiles.mapbox.com/v4/lxbarth.647bc246/page.html?access_token=pk.eyJ1IjoibHhiYXJ0aCIsImEiOiJFVXdYcUlvIn0.bbaHTEWlnAwGgyVwJngMdQ#5/39.724/-99.360
I think the correct phrase is "Here's a map showing where TIGER is
different than OSM." Just because new TIGER data is available, doesn't
make it better. In my limited experience with just small parts of two
states, new TIGER data in rural areas is often bad.
Clifford
--
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us <http://osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us>
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
So the yellow is where tiger 2013 is better? In a few areas I checked
and had updated OSM, its much worse than OSM. And as Clifford notes, in
many rural counties, new tiger is no better than old tiger, or its
marginally better than old tiger. In a few cases, a county has seen a
decent upgrade in quality with newer tiger, but seems to be a small
minority of cases where I look which is Florida.
And then there is the issue of areas where OSM has not been edited much
and the original tiger is mostly the same as the new tiger, so there's
not much yellow. You can see vast swatchs of this in Alabama, Georgia
and NW Florida - and it lines up to county lines.
Overall, I think the map is somewhat misleading.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us