Tiger - node litter - US New Hampshire
2 March 2008 کوں English وچ lewis_pusey دی طرفوں پوسٹ کیتا ڳیا.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.
بحث مباحثہ
2 March 2008تے 21:55دے بارے Welshie دی رائے
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.
3 March 2008تے 00:37دے بارے lewis_pusey دی رائے
I'd dig deeper
3 March 2008تے 00:38دے بارے lewis_pusey دی رائے
It's called vertical market integration
3 March 2008تے 09:29دے بارے Richard دی رائے
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....
3 March 2008تے 16:44دے بارے lewis_pusey دی رائے
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.
3 March 2008تے 17:18دے بارے IgnoredAmbience دی رائے
"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.
3 March 2008تے 17:22دے بارے Richard دی رائے
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.
4 March 2008تے 05:32دے بارے lewis_pusey دی رائے
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.