Given the earlier statements regarding alignment, etc, of the road vectors, and the seemingly large amount of work to revert these changes, perhaps an incremental replacement of road geometry with TIGER 2011 data along with manual conflation of existing attributes is a more effective application of effort. This assumes, of course, the TIGER data (which I have not examined for LA County) is markedly superior to the existing data.
John, I can't (quickly) say which would be the "more effective application of effort," though your approach may for you, my approach (targeted changeset reverts, though of course, effort ahead: WHICH changesets?) may for me (or Charlotte, or having Charlotte "better characterize" a distillation of what she might see as a pattern in blars' edits with a changeset puppeteer facile with JOSM...). This is made difficult by wanting (simultaneously) "a right process" to both "be achieved" and "be achieved with consensus."
Keep talking, everybody. (e.g. Charlotte, perhaps you can say whether TIGER 2011 data ARE "markedly superior to the existing data..." or if not, what do you need to see/experience so you CAN, and do. Or maybe Charlotte doesn't say this, somebody else does).
I have confidence we can get there, Charlotte and I seem to have an odd knack for stirring up better questions with answers/approaches that get us closer. Great thread!
SteveA California _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
