I do not think there is anything to gain from the counties that are listed to not be improved. My county (orange county fl.) is one that was NOT improved yet, and in QGIS it looks to be unmodified from the original tiger import. There are not any new tags in the data that would add anything either.
Orange county Fl. does not have dual carriage ways, but Lake county Fl. which was updated does have them. I have looked at the current county files, and the same is true. So I'm not sure it is the tiger improvement making it dual carriage ways, or the fact that the source county has them as dual to start with. Dale On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 6:46 PM, Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 20:39 +1100, Nick Hocking wrote: > > On a more infalmatory note, I checked with yahoo and google and it > > seems that in a LOT or areas more than half of the tiger roads don't > > actually exist. The mappers must have been paid by the road :-) Is > > tiger 2007 any better in this regard and does it yet have dual > > carriageways for all the interstates? > > I don't know. That's why I'm writing the conversion scripts, so I can > look at it in my existing OSM tools and see how it renders. > > If anyone knows, or wants to look into it, please stick whatever you > learn on the wiki. I'll make sure to keep checking it. > > -- Dave > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Dale Puch
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
