I suspect the Karlsruhe schema is a bit like the license change. Everyone thinks they have a better idea, and it will take 3 weeks of back and forth to go over it before they figure out that it's the best (or, least worst) way forward... but by then another 3 people who need convincing pop up.... then 9 then 27... until you reach the tail off of the s-curve.
On Nov 15, 2009, at 5:52 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Peter Batty <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm coming a bit late to this debate, but I just wanted to raise a fairly >> basic question, which is whether the Karlsruhe schema is the best one to use >> in the situation we find ourselves in with TIGER, where quite a bit of data >> cleanup is anticipated. > > I signed up for the "USA 'conversion team'" with the express intention > of challenging the use of the Karlsruhe schema. Maybe you can sign up > too (even if you're not in the US). > >> The main challenge with >> maintaining this format, as Frederik and others pointed out, is if you split >> or join a way. But it's relatively easy to put logic in editors to handle >> that, and even if you have to do it manually, it seems to me easier to >> maintain this model than the more precise Karlsruhe schema if you are doing >> quite a bit of data cleanup. > > The TIGER data has already been significantly degraded from people > doing just this type of thing. The problem is, if a way goes from 2 > to 100, and you want to split it in the middle (say, due to a change > in the number of lanes), you have to either resurvey the addresses or > take a shot in the dark and split it 2-48, 50-100. That might be > reasonable if the 2-100 were accurate in the first place, but if that > 2-100 were really 2-20, you've seriously screwed things up. The TIGER > data already contains large numbers of instances of exactly this, but > there's no sense introducing a schema which makes this even worse. > > On the other hand, there are other possibilities which avoid this > problem and also avoid creating multiple ways. Join the conversion > team with me and we can talk about them. > >> So this is not an either / or proposal of course - both forms could exist, >> and you search for the more precise form before the more approximate form. > > As much as I hate the meme of saying +1 when you agree with someone, I > have to say +1. Or maybe "AMEN". > > On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Dale Puch <[email protected]> wrote: >> I personally favor having the possible address range in the street way >> segment (between intersections) > > Join the team! > > Anthony > > _______________________________________________ > Imports mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports > Yours &c. Steve _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
