I've done extensive reworking of "my area" of the Upper Valley of the Connecticut River on the New Hampshire - Vermont Border. What a mess! Tiger was dropped as a layer over my previously uploaded data. Think I may have sorted a lot of it out, though no doubt a good amount is left to be done, getting a neck ache from it all. I guess my wish would be for Tiger not to be reintroduced in this area anytime soon. Tried to keep what was best of both datasets. One way to keep editors happy is to not nuke "their" data. Tiger had (and has) many significant errors here. Naming is one, missing new construction, and a spectacular mis-conflation of a major roadway, all in a days fun for Tiger, seems as Tiger has updated there data possibly from O.S.M. in one instance noted. On another note I notice the online applet editor know has copyright data from Navteq and Tele Atlas. Thought they were evil incarnate, at least according to the talk digest. Guess it's only a matter of time before forking private and getting all that free editor content and making money off of it. Perhaps they could pay me to enhance O.S.M. data.
Discussion
Komentar wót Welshie wót 2. March 2008 21:55
The online editor applet (isn't actually a Java applet any more - it's now called Potlatch, and is written in Flash) can use Yahoo's API to retreive aerial imagery, for which we are allowed to create derivative works. Sadly a bug in Yahoo's API also stamps the aerial photos with the copyright information for the roads layer (which we aren't using), which might imply the false information that the aerial imagery is sourced from Tele Atlas, or Navteq.
Komentar wót lewis_pusey wót 3. March 2008 00:37
I'd dig deeper
Komentar wót lewis_pusey wót 3. March 2008 00:38
It's called vertical market integration
Komentar wót Richard wót 3. March 2008 09:29
No, Welshie is right. I can say this with some certainty as I actually wrote Potlatch.
If you don't believe me then look at the code....
Komentar wót lewis_pusey wót 3. March 2008 16:44
Not sure what people think I'm having and argument about potlatch about? -
just forgot the name.
The issue I was responding to was that yahoo might let you use a layer in potlatch, however they might not own that (image) layer which introduces a further legal complication with those that do, perhaps Yahoo bought the company that provided the image layer, I'm not abreast of all the latest news. I know O.S.M.ers like flogging such subjects to death, not always with clarity. You either "believe" or not, so I'm not going in for any debate, really. Everyone can have their own opinion.
Komentar wót IgnoredAmbience wót 3. March 2008 17:18
"I guess my wish would be for Tiger not to be reintroduced in this area anytime soon. ... One way to keep editors happy is to not nuke "their" data."
I believe that the Tiger data was tried to be imported without too much conflict with existing data. AFAIK, counties were only imported when someone requested them, or if that county had no data in OSM at all. Obviously this process was not perfect in this case.
Tiger is intended to be a one-time import into OSM, as a 'useful' base layer to get started on in places with no coverage. Tiger's data accuracy and correctness is known to be very poor in places, but the bulk is near-enough correct.
Komentar wót Richard wót 3. March 2008 17:22
Sure, that's been a known consideration with the Yahoo imagery since the start. We wouldn't have introduced it if we didn't believe it was safe, but the situation's always under review.
Komentar wót lewis_pusey wót 4. March 2008 05:32
Thanks for all the good comments, good to know no new tiger imports planned any time soon. Enjoyed Potlatch as well, no coder (me) though.