Hi, On 10/29/18 18:49, Joshua Carlson wrote: > If all goes well, I may use this as a template to add buildings and > addresses for the other 32 counties that do not collect building > footprints on their own. The other 39 which /do /provide footprint data > may make a good, straightforward import, but that will be down the road.
Perhaps you would like to consider taking one of the counties that do have footprints and comparing them with the ones from the MS data set. That would give you an idea of the general quality of data you're dealing with - it is *possible* that such an analysis leads you to spot a common problem in the MS data which you can then somehow avoid or flag even during those imports where you rely on MS footprints exclusively. OTOH, if you should find that MS data is almost 100% the same as county data in areas where both are available, that would give you more confidence for the import in those areas where you rely on MS. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
