On 10/12/09 10:28 AM, Bill Ricker wrote:
I sympathize with Greg, and if the surveyors and computational mappers
ruled the world, the real world we seek to model will be simpler.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:44 PM, David Lynchdjly...@gmail.com wrote:
where city limits cross county lines,
WTF?
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:31 AM, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
You're still acting like the tags are put on regions, when the tags
are actually put on borders.
It's both. The relation (specifically, boundary and
In most states, municipal boundaries have been imported from TIGER
data. In many of these states, no admin_level tag was used. That
should be corrected (admin_level=8 for incorporated municipalities)
but that's not the focus of this discussion. In the states where
these boundaries were imported
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
Another question is if these CDPs should be rendered on the default map;
I'd say no. Would a renderer without special knowledge of admin_level
render them or ignore them? Perhaps bogus arguments, but as a thought
experiment
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
So how about boundary=lot
Fine with me. It's an issue I care about very little, it's one line
of code to change.
I believe that in Mass
lot lines can straddle town boundaries - but I'm not 100% sure.
However, now we're
I sympathize with Greg, and if the surveyors and computational mappers
ruled the world, the real world we seek to model will be simpler.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:44 PM, David Lynch djly...@gmail.com wrote:
where city limits cross county lines,
WTF? Where does that happen? down where a county
6 matches
Mail list logo
