On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Apollinaris Schoell <ascho...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > This data is definitely very up-to-date. It is used by the county to >> impose property taxes, so it has to be up-to-date. They offer new files >> weekly. >> > > problem is how can you convert the weekly updates into osm updates? You > can't delete all data and upload again the next week. > I'm not volunteering to do it *weekly*, but I'd only delete and upload (or modify) the data that changes, of course :). I basically just want the address info. Having the parcel polygons is a >> bonus, but if it proves to be too difficult to maintain I could just move >> the data to the ways as an interpolation. >> > > just address data seems reasonable. It shouldn't change that much and > easier to maintain. > I'll see how much the polygon data has changed since the data I downloaded a month ago. I would think the main changes to the parts that I'm importing (not property values and all that stuff) would be when new subdivisions are added, which would affect address data as well, and affects the Tiger data too. That and use changes (e.g. residential to commercial), but use changes are easy to update automagically and without human intervention. I could do this as point data. I could merge the parcel polygons into block polygons to cut down on the number of polygons by an order of magnitude or so. It'd be nice to at least see the block lines. It's great seeing the cul-de-sacs and curved corners tracing out the gaps in the roads. On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Hillsman, Edward <hills...@cutr.usf.edu>wrote: > Hi Anthony, > > One other possibility would be to calculate and upload parcel centroids > (points) instead of whole parcels. Yep. Or if I have the patience I could identify the road the address is on and put the point a few meters off the road in the center of the lot line parallel to the road, this way long lots would look better. But then, if I'm going to that, I might as well just add the info to the way as interpolation data, right? On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Apollinaris Schoell <ascho...@gmail.com>wrote: > adding a tag like [hcparcel:verified=no] is useless. > Okay, I won't do that. :) another suggestion. don't make the same mistake as tiger, Massgis, PGS > coastline ... imports and tag individual nodes if they are members of a way. > I can't imagine any reason I'd do that. :) > don't add too many tags which have no use for osm and can be easily looked > up in the source data. > Yep, I'm thinking addr:housenumber, addr:street, landuse=residential, and let people look up the rest using proptax_folio_numb=*. But I'm leaning toward using point data for the addrs and polygons for the blocks (any polygons which touch and have the same landuse would be merged). Maybe I don't even need the proptax_folio_numb? That could be looked up given the housenumber and street anyway, I guess. > also consider to add some less useful tags to the changeset instead. > Which ones? I'm doing a test import on a nearby neighborhood (maybe 500 houses?) before I move to the whole county. I'll post on here after that, and give a few days for more suggestions/objections. And as of yet I still haven't figured out all the technical details, so there's time before even that happens. Maybe I'll only do a few neighborhoods at a time until I'm sure I can maintain everything.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
