Nathan Edgars II <[email protected]> writes: > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 1:41 AM, Peter Budny <[email protected]> wrote: >> This seems relevant to this thread, although it's not in reply to any >> particular part of it: >> >> As part of a school project, I'm creating a robot that will use the >> TIGER metadata to automatically attempt to create route relations for >> State Roads. (The Interstates and US Highways are mostly finished, it >> seems, but there are tens of thousands of state routes that haven't been >> touched.) > > TIGER's state highway data is pretty horrible. For example, in > Florida, there are many so-called state roads that were given to the > counties in the 1980s. It seems most have been fixed, but here's an > example: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=30.4537&lon=-85.2118&zoom=14&layers=M
I'm planning on using the tiger:base_name tag, since that seems to be pretty consistently applied (except that TIGER couldn't decide whether to use "State Highway" or "State Route" or "SR"... but I can just search for all known combinations of names). The area you linked seems to have these tags intact for FL 20, FL 73, FL 287, and FL 287A. Did I overlook something? > You also have major problems in towns, where a route doesn't make a > turn like it should. The generated relations will have to be checked by hand, because of problems exactly like this. However, 80-90% of the tedious work will be done, and (I hope) users will be able to walk the relation end-to-end and fix up the problem spots pretty easily. Checking all 6000+ of Kentucky's state routes by hand seems easier than having to actually *find* all 6000 of them by staring at the map. -- Peter Budny \ Georgia Tech \ CS PhD student \ _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
