On 30 July 2010 21:00, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > 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.
How do you come to that figure? My guess would be that 95% are right. The only objects that may contain a TLID that refers to a different real life object and don't contain a TLID that refers to the actual object can be those that (a) underwent very heavy surgery (not simple splitting or joining, but exchanging tags and geometry with another object for example) or (b) were fictitious and shouldn't have been in tiger in the first place. Most objects have not been touched at all, out of those which have been touched by a mapper, most have been changed using common sense to find the shortest path to make the object correct (e.g. change street's name tag and leave geometry mostly alone or change geometry and leave the name alone, splitting, joining, etc) Cheers _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
