On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Simon O'Keefe wrote:

> The 'Create View' statement may have been replaced by the 'Save Query'
> statement, which creates a TAB and a QRY file.

Thanks Simon, but I found the answer (thanks to Bill Wemple of MapInfo.)  
The Create View documentation is under "Open Table" in the MapBasic 
online docs.

In those docs they show an example of a view as used by MapInfo's
StreetInfo product. However, you'll notice that this is a version 1 type 
tab file. Bill W. says the reason for this is that there is nothing in a 
view that requires the newer capabilities of ver 3 tab files. Also, a ver 
1 View can use ver 3 tab files, and of course you can create a version 3 
view tab file too.

If you're trying to make your own StreetInfo-like tables from TIGER data
(as I'm doing with MS Access and a few VBA scripts), here's a couple of
other things to keep in mind. First, when you import your street name
table, you should make it not mappable (MIF files always import as
mappable even if all objects are listed as "none.") Probably a better 
output format for this table would be CSV rather than MIF.

Second, you must index your street names, and when you join the street 
segment table with the street name table in the view, you MUST reference 
the street name table first in the From clause. Do it the other way and 
your street names will appear to be randomly associated with street 
segments. Forget to make the street names table not mappable, and you 
won't see any streets either!

Do it right, and you can have nice street maps --that can be used for 
geocoding in MapInfo too-- for any US county you wish. 

Of course, you can make a workable street file as a single table and none 
of these conditions apply, but that approach would make bloated tables.

- Bill Thoen


---------------------------------------------------------------------
List hosting provided by Directions Magazine | www.directionsmag.com |
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message number: 17259

Reply via email to