[aprssig] Re: TIGER maps what-s the problem?

[KC2MMI (Jared)]

Chris-
 << The guy writing the software
has zero, none, zip, nada, information about accuracy
or lack thereof, so he shouldn't make a presentation that he
knows.  Making a big fuzzy circle would be more bogus than
making a pinpoint.>>
 Well, that's something I guess we can disagree about. The guy writing the
software, and choosing the maps to use in it, certainly can ask the source "what
is the accuracy of these maps?" and make use of that information. You think he
can't get that information? I know he can. You think using a position circle
that reflects this would be INaccurate? I disagree. I think you've got it
backwards, because we both know--as a certainty--that the pinprick position will
be wrong, while the big circle will include the correct position most of the
time. (All of the time, if it is sized appropriately.) Which is better, an
answer that we know will amost always be wrong? Or an answer that we know will
almost always be right?
 If you don't get that, let's just drop it and agree that we disagree.

<<Here's an analogy: >>
 Invalid analogy. You may or may not have any way to verify that user input. A
similar but better analogy is the similar database used by the US Postal Service
when you purchase online postage or services. If I enter your name and street
address, I have the choice of entering it "as is" or selecting address
verification. The USPS already knows all the valid addresses in the US, they've
validated an awful lot of them. So if I type in:
 Chris
123 Main Street
Anytown USA 92001

the post office may come back and challenge that, showing
Chris
123-B Main Street
Anytown, USA 92001-1003

and ask me if I want to accept or reject it. They don't HAVE TO validate the
data, but they do have the ability to validate most of it and to catch many
errors. Saying that you won't try to catch any errors because you may not be
ableto bat 100%...Well, every baseball team knows they won't bat 100%. That
doesn't stop them from trying.

I say we should be trying. You're entitled to disagree.