On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > Used state data instead, if I were to do a mass import. Oregon GEO > knows what they're doing, the US Census (along with the rest of the > federal government) barely acknowledges we exist. Which would you > rather trust?
indeed, that's why there are massgis: tags instead of tiger: tags in Massachusetts. We get our own parochial weirdnesses as a result, but it's better than TIGER in so many ways (even re oneway randomness). I did a little work on Rhode Island after a recent roadtrip and was reminded how nasty raw TIGER imports are eg around interchanges. The one area MassGIS fails us is finer granularity of the non-routable boundaries off the primary thoroughfares, but it should be scriptably repairable. Oregon GEO is quite possibly as enlightened about licensing as MassGIS too -- if their data are better than Tiger and compatibly licensed with OSM, it's worth importing as replacement for unfixed Tiger or Tiger that only you have only un-abbreviated. Hard part is deciding what to do about the hand edits, either to tiger imports or new where old tiger had nothing. This is the same as the discussion about replacing old tiger with new. -- Bill [email protected] [email protected] _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
