maning sambale wrote: > While our team is working on Jacksonville, we found unreviewed > TIGER (v1, tiger:reviewed:=no) in some areas.
I don't want to dismay you too much, but 90%+ of the US is like that... (...though don't take v1 as an important signifier: it's possible for a way to be at v3 or v5 or whatever, but actually all the versions are automated edits deleting unnecessary TIGER tags, rather than genuine human review.) There are massive opportunities to improve the unreviewed TIGER data across the US and it would be good to have that discussion here. But the sine qua non: please do not delete tiger:reviewed from any highway type which is usually paved in developed countries (e.g. residential) unless you're genuinely reviewing the surface type. Kansas is a disaster area for routing because of the number of dirt tracks or worse which are tagged as residential with no tiger:reviewed tag. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Unreviewed-TIGER-in-Jacksonville-was-Re-Talk-us-Digest-Vol-114-Issue-22-tp5897513p5897528.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
