[Geodata] TIGER data (was Ok, I'm here . . .)

[Bob Basques]

Stephen,

Stephen Frost wrote:
> Bob, et al,
>
> * Bob Basques (bob.b at gritechnologies.com) wrote:
>   
>> Stephen Woodbridge wrote:
>>     
>>> Bob Basques wrote:
>>>       
>> 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.
>   
Yes we were aware of this.  The OpenStreetMap data is just a side effort 
at the moment.
>
> 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.
>   
Seems like a painful thing to pass on the to end users of the data, at 
least if you intend for it to be used by anyone.
>> 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...
>   
It would be a heck of a lot of work to do though, becase this type of 
information is generally handled at the municipal level, although, they 
could only be applying it in the populated areas.
>>>> 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..
>   
Yes, that was a stipulation of the contract and something that was 
actively pursued.   I was on the project team.

bobb
> 	Thanks,
>
> 		Stephen
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geodata/attachments/20080622/35b63a00/attachment.html