<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">Hi Chris<br><br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">From: Christopher Schmidt <crschmidt@crschmidt.net><br><br>> I think there is a general consensus that 07 is better in some places<br>> than 06, and Dave Hansen, who managed the TIGER update, seemed<br>> relatively confident in the ability to update the existing data (iff the<br>> data hadn't been manually updated in the meantime), or at least the<br>> ability to look into it.<br>><br>> There are going to be huge areas of the country that simply don't have<br>> any mappers in them, but may have updated TIGER information: I think<br>> that taking the position that "OSM Mappers will simply
make it better in<br>> every way than TIGER" is a bit egocentric. Certainly, there are many<br>> cases where this is the case -- anywhere where there are active mappers<br>> -- but there are still less than 20,000 OSM contributors worlwide still,<br>> I think, and there are nearly 4000000 square miles in the US -- 200<br>> square miles per contributor, even if they were all in the US, is a lot<br>> of land to cover accurately. (Some mappers have covered much more, I'm<br>> sure, but the long tail says that most mappers will cover much less.)<br><br>Agreed. In areas where there's been no manual updating, it's worth a look.<br><br>Is there any reference comparing TIGER 06 vs 07?<br><br>-Mikel<br><br></div></div></div></body></html>