On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 2:39 AM, Nick Hocking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> I consider that your bulk upload script is in exactly the same boat > as an automaitc edit script. As such I think that it should adhere > to the code of conduct for automatic editors, one point of which is > to respect others' edits. > > To me, this means, don't revert or corrupt others' edits. > To achieve this your script only needs to follow three > rules. > > 1)Do not modify or delete any data unless you are upgrading > unmodified tiger data > 2) Do not place a way if it already exists, unless you are > replacing an unmodified tiger way. > 3) Do not add a way or part thereof if it has been deleted > by a user. > > Breaking rules 1 or 3 would be, in essence, reverting a user's > edit. Breaking rule 2 would be corrupting it > > If you can manage to make your script follow all three rules > then I can't see anyone having any problems. > > On a more infalmatory note, I checked with yahoo and google > and it seems that in a LOT or areas more than half of the > tiger roads don't actually exist. The mappers must have been > paid by the road :-) > > Is tiger 2007 any better in this regard and does it yet have > dual carriageways for all the interstates? > > Nick > Well, #2 would be nice but it would be tricky to detect a collision with an existing way. Frankly, because the first TIGER import was done, the number of completely new ways that would be added in a new import would be small, and the number of those ways that conflict with ways added manually by editors would be even smaller. So, I think it's a small sacrifice to have to remove a few duplicated roads in exchange for county-wide improved accuracy. Karl
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
