I'm curious if they've fixed some of the self-inconsistencies they
seem to have had (or did I just load the data wrong) in the 2006 (or
was it 2005) data I loaded earlier.
An example is Interstate 280's odd gap behind Stanford.
http://map1.forensiclogic.com/maps/mapcache.pl?userid=1&sessionid=0&features=0&layer=land&layer=roads&layer=userfeatures&map_size=640+480&map=cp.map&mapext=-122.2233+37.38634+-122.1655+37.42966&mode=map
Other examples were the Dumbarton and San Mateo bridges across
San Francisco Bay not quite connecting with each other; but I
can't provide a link for that because IIRC we hand-edited those.
Stephen Frost wrote:
Jonathan,
* Jonathan W. Lowe ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Have you yet tried overlaying TIGER 2007 linework or census block/tract
polygons over Google or OpenStreetMap tiles? I'm seeing a good match in
some areas but a significant shift (~50 meters) in others. Thought it
might be a datum conversion issue, but can't seem to find a match.
I hadn't looked at the linework too much yet or tried to overlay it.
I'm curious where you're seeing the differences though because I know
that Census is only about half way through their MAF improvment project
and I actually have some info about what has been done so far and what
hasn't. It'd be interesting to see if it matches up.
There are a few places (Guam, Hawaii islands) where they actually do use
an SRID other than 4269, but my scripts don't yet handle that and I'm
guessing that's not what you're referring to anyway. :)
Thanks!
Stephen
On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 17:07 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I think they may have also upgraded their pipe.. I got about 1.41MB/s
(11 Mb/s) for the whole transfer. It's about 22G all told. I'll
probably be trying to load it up into PG on one of our servers tomorrow.
It was a bit over 4 hours for me to pull down off of their
ftp2.census.gov ftp site.
Just to update those who might be interested- I've finished the data
load into one of our servers at work. It comes to ~60GB on disk in
PostgreSQL/PostGIS with appropriate indexes in most places and whatnot.
Based on what I've seen so far, it looks *very* nice, especially the
hydrogrophy ("areawater"). It also appears to be pretty consistant
across the layers, which is also good.
If anyone's interested in the scripts used to load the data (they're
pretty simple, really), I'd be happy to provide them.
Enjoy,
Stephen
_______________________________________________
postgis-users mailing list
postgis-users@postgis.refractions.net
http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
_______________________________________________
postgis-users mailing list
postgis-users@postgis.refractions.net
http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
postgis-users mailing list
postgis-users@postgis.refractions.net
http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
_______________________________________________
postgis-users mailing list
postgis-users@postgis.refractions.net
http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
