[Geodata] Ok, I'm here . . . (Tiger stuff.)

[Stephen Frost]

Bob, et al,

* Bob Basques (bob.b at gritechnologies.com) wrote:
> Stephen Woodbridge wrote:
>> Bob Basques wrote:
>>> I'm using the Tiger data mainly for mapping right now, I'm interested
>>> in the addressing side as well, but have a good local dataset for
>>> this, also looking at OpenStreetmap for some comparable value.
>>
>> I would be interested in this also, but I'm stack overflow at the  
>> moment so that will have to wait.
> We have the OpenStreetmap database (whole world) installed in POSTGIS  
> already, took a few days to just run the index, anyway, it works, and  
> pretty darn quick, we're not POSTGIS gurus (yet) though, so I'm sure  
> there is more tuning to be had in the response times

I believe the OSM data is based on tiger '06se data.  I'm not sure how
they incorporated it in the end or how hard it would be to update to the
'07 format though.

>>> My main interest, and problem area, at the moment with the tiger data
>>> is the road classification stuff,  It seems overly complicated, but I
>>> don't know all the subtleties related to who uses what and how.  I've
>>> been trying to apply the Googlish looking MAP file to it, and it's
>>> been an uphill battle.
>>
>> Yes, well I have two major issues in this area.
>>
>> 1) CFCC to MTFCC change lost a lot of information about the segments  
>> as it appears to be a courser gain resolution and it seems to be way  
>> more complicated. I guess we will have to learn to live with this 
>> change.

I'm curious if, overall, information was really lost.  There are alot of
flags and whatnot and other places where the information could be that's
not what you're finding in the MTFCC.

>> 2) When you compare Tiger to Google (Navteq or TeleAtlas) the later  
>> have a major road classification that is not present in the Tiger  
>> data. These roads are classified as CFCC=A4* in the old data.  
>> Basically the missing classification in tiger would allow you to  
>> identify the roads in light yellow on this google map:

I had a similar issue with the *old* Tiger data, actually, but found
that they were federal highways and was able to pull the necessary
information from the federal highway administration shapefiles.

> Yup, this was the first think that I had a problem with.  BTW, I think  
> Google is using and Average Daily Traffic(ADT)  for their map themesand  
> not strictly a classification system.  My suspicion was raised when I  
> noticed some local streets not theming correctly when compared to  
> Google.  I have no way of know for sure though.

That's an interesting idea.

> Do you know of any ADT datasets?   I can't figure out how google would  
> be able to get this type of info, so that's why it's just a suspicion  
> right now.

It could be a dataset that google's picked up from their commercial
providers...

>>> I need to come up with a dataset that will extend the coverage area
>>> beyond our local dataset for centerline prorated geocoding purposes.
>>
>> So what are you using for a geocoding engine?
> Some recent extensions to PAGC were developed here under a MetroGIS  
> contract.   The Engine seems very fast. we're in the testing stages now  
> with the first extended version.  I believe it will be going public on  
> the PAGC list fairly soon.

Sounds interesting.  Public being open source in some way?  I've never
looked at PAGC, honestly..

	Thanks,

		Stephen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geodata/attachments/20080622/8f9260bb/attachment.bin