Martin Trautmann wrote: > Sven Anders wrote: >> I think you have found "bad" OpenGeoDB data.
>> I was not expecting that OpenGeoDB data behaves like this. > > What do you mean by bad data? > I got data of eight different Oberleiten in Bavaria, where six of them > are listed within opengeodb, one of them named as "Oberleiten, > Mangfall", leaving five "Oberleiten". > > I would not consider those as "bad" necessarily. They have different > locations, different postal areas and do belong to different communities > > http://fa-technik.adfc.de/code/opengeodb.pl?ort=Oberleiten;c=DE Hi all, Sven urged me to clear this confusion. By now I learned which version he used: http://fa-technik.adfc.de/code/opengeodb/dump/opengeodb-02611_2007-12-04.sql.gz This dump was created as a quick shot, after including several thousand new places. It is true that this dump contains "bad data" for duplicate names. The problem was recognized and fixed soon after. But the licence conflict with data derived from OSM prevented to build a new dump. These datas have been split again by now, since opengeodb is and should remain open data, while OSM requires CC by SA. The online information has been ok since quite a while. By now a new dump is available which should provide much better values. I would not recommend all of its levels, since there are duplicate structures due to the organisation of a community itself - but that's up to Sven what to take. HTH, Martin _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
