Looks decent. I'm surprised they don't have MassGIS's hydrography data ...
this NHD is quite low res and offset compared to what they have.
The conversion seems OK though.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Ben Supnik wrote:
> Hi Y'all,
>
> This is one sub-basin (01090001 - go Sox :-), isolated f
Hi Y'all,
This is one sub-basin (01090001 - go Sox :-), isolated from the latest
NHD data, then converted via the latest rule set off of the wiki (with
shapefile key capitalizations fixed).
http://dev.x-plane.com/download/01090001.zip
If anyone has done NHD imports before, please take a quic
Well, it's been a while since I worked on it, so I can't recall exactly. But
as I recall, there were things like, say, a small pond made up of a hundred
nodes when 20 or so would suffice. Or pretty straight lines with nodes at
closely spaced intervals, where all but the first and last were co
Hi Y'all,
I have a command line tool that copies subsets of shapefiles based on a
polygonal region of another shapefile...you feed it the key/value pair
of a HUC_8 from the master sub-basin file and one or more* NHD
shapefiles and it produces an extract.
I hit one tricky case while looking a
Hi Y'all,
What qualifies as too many nodes? Do we have metrics for this? I can
apply some kind of simplification if we can quantify what we want...
cheers
ben
On 4/28/11 4:34 PM, Alan Millar wrote:
I've been checking some of the imported data and my general feel is that it is
overdigitized
>I've been checking some of the imported data and my general feel is that it is
>overdigitized. I don't know if medium versus high reflects just the quality
>or
>the amount of digitization. That would be something to check. One could also
>just run some sort of simplification algorithm on al
Hi James,
I've been checking some of the imported data and my general feel is that it is
overdigitized. I don't know if medium versus high reflects just the quality or
the amount of digitization. That would be something to check. One could also
just run some sort of simplification algorithm o
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 8:08 AM, James Umbanhowar wrote:
> On Thursday 28 April 2011 08:53:56 Ben Supnik wrote:
> > Hi Ian,
> >
> > I should be able to convert the NHD data sometime in the next week or
> > so. Also, if/when you want the original data, let me know.
> >
> > For the conversion, do w
On Thursday 28 April 2011 08:53:56 Ben Supnik wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> I should be able to convert the NHD data sometime in the next week or
> so. Also, if/when you want the original data, let me know.
>
> For the conversion, do we want medium or high resolution?
>
> Re: the import status map, I do
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Ben Supnik wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> I should be able to convert the NHD data sometime in the next week or so.
> Also, if/when you want the original data, let me know.
>
> For the conversion, do we want medium or high resolution?
>
We'll want high resolution.
>
> R
Hi Ian,
I should be able to convert the NHD data sometime in the next week or
so. Also, if/when you want the original data, let me know.
For the conversion, do we want medium or high resolution?
Re: the import status map, I don't know how to make an actual map from
themshort of simply p
Yep: if you have the ability and time to cut the national dataset into
subbasins I'll give you an SFTP to upload them to and I'll start converting
them to OSM.
>From there we could add links to the pre-converted subbasin OSM bundles to
the wiki pages.
Bonus points for converting the subbasin boun
Hi Y'all,
So let me see if I can summarize where we are so far...
- I could cut the NHD data down to sub-basins. It would not be a perfect
cutting (e.g. each sub-basin might need a little bit of data "hanging
off" since the raw data isn't cut on sub-basin boundaries) but it would
be pretty cl
13 matches
Mail list logo
