On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Apollinaris Schoell
> wrote:
> > my experience is that TIGER is the worst.
> Well, there's certainly worse, such as the "USGS 2001 County Boundary"
> import, which has way too few nodes to get any sort of
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> my experience is that TIGER is the worst.
Well, there's certainly worse, such as the "USGS 2001 County Boundary"
import, which has way too few nodes to get any sort of precision. I've
been replacing this with 2008/2009 TIGER data.
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> (note: I'm talking about boundaries that have stayed in the same place
> during recent times, not those that change every year by annexations.)
> While the TIGER data is pretty good for these boundaries, it has some
> precision issues. For
(note: I'm talking about boundaries that have stayed in the same place
during recent times, not those that change every year by annexations.)
While the TIGER data is pretty good for these boundaries, it has some
precision issues. For example, at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.81072&lon=-74.06
4 matches
Mail list logo
