On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Alan Mintz <alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net> wrote: > There's another, very important use for the "tiger:reviewed" tag.
As I've said above, that's the one tiger tag I don't remove (until I've reviewed the way, of course). You don't seem to have read that message. In it I went through each of the tiger tags individually and explained what was wrong with them. The tiger:tlid key in particular is in horrible shape, to the point where I guess at least 95% of them *are* wrong. Basically, the only tag I can imagine worth keeping would be the name_type, name_base, name_* ones, and those should be removed from the tiger:* namespace. But really before that can be done a standard should be decided on about how to store the names. Once that is done, I'll gladly produce a script to re-add all the name_base/name_types that I've deleted. Anyway, I hear what you're saying about removing things added by others, but when you fill the database with millions upon millions of entries with no apparent usefulness, I think part of the burden is on you to justify why they should stay. TIGER was great for filling up what was a nearly blank map. But gradually we should be moving beyond TIGER. Hopefully one day there will be no TIGER data left. That should be the goal. So I guess we're at an impasse. Because your message above hasn't provided me any new information. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
