Y, this would be the most accurate way to put this. Most often actually neither data is excellent. We have an opportunity here in the US: create the most spatially accurate and complete dataset available.
On Sunday, March 15, 2015, Clifford Snow <cliff...@snowandsnow.us> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Alex Barth <a...@mapbox.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 > OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch > -- Alex Barth Vice President OpenStreetMap United States Inc.
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us