On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 14:08 -0400, Christopher Schmidt wrote: > On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 10:53:43AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 13:51 -0400, Christopher Schmidt wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 10:31:11AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 09:12 -0400, Christopher Schmidt wrote: > > > > > That is exactly what I am suggesting, based on an examination of the > > > > > objects in the area you're looking at: all of them have been updated > > > > > several times (as the history URL above demonstrates) by a single user > > > > > in what seems to clearly be a cleanup effort. (This was based on using > > > > > an OpenLayers map to select 10 different streets based on the lonlat I > > > > > observed in your JOSM instance and view the history for each.) > > > > > > > > If this is true, then we can probably go back and fix it. We have all > > > > of the TIGER tlid (unique ids) for all of the uploaded data. Have those > > > > remained the same in the new TIGER data? > > > > > > Fix... what? OSM is correct here... perhaps you mean "We can improve > > > TIGER 2007 with OSM data"? > > > > Did I misunderstand what's going on? > > > > I assumed that the TIGER '07 data is better than the TIGER '05 (or so) > > data that we populated OSM with. If it is better, we can update OSM > > from TIGER '07. > > The images that were shared in this thread demonstrate that OSM is *way* > better than TIGER '05 or '07.
...that's true of Berkeley, Chris, but in any US geography where nobody has yet edited the original TIGER upload, OSM is equivalent to TIGER '05 in all but storage format, and therefore may not be as accurate as TIGER '07. > > Regards, _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
