On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 12:30 -0500, Ian Dees wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 12:42 -0400, John Callahan wrote:
> > Spatially it's no contest. I've attached just a few simple
> images to
> > sho
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 12:42 -0400, John Callahan wrote:
> > Spatially it's no contest. I've attached just a few simple images to
> > show what I mean. These show our new dataset in red vs TIGER 2007 in
> > purple. Rememb
On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 12:42 -0400, John Callahan wrote:
> Spatially it's no contest. I've attached just a few simple images to
> show what I mean. These show our new dataset in red vs TIGER 2007 in
> purple. Remember that the red lines match the hi-res photography.
Wow. Hard to argue with that
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 8:48 PM, yellowbkpk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm just about done importing the NHD Data into a PostGIS database and can
> begin exporting to OSM format. Is there anyone out there that has already
> imported NHD data or drawn water bodies/rivers themselves that would want
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Paul Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> dave wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 11:00 -0400, John Callahan wrote:
> > >
> > > To answer your question...Yes, our new road dataset is a significant
> > > improvement over current TIGER data (which I obtained from
> >
dave wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 11:00 -0400, John Callahan wrote:
> >
> > To answer your question...Yes, our new road dataset is a significant
> > improvement over current TIGER data (which I obtained from
> > http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/tgrshp2007/tgrshp2007.html)
>
> Could yo
On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 11:00 -0400, John Callahan wrote:
>
> To answer your question...Yes, our new road dataset is a significant
> improvement over current TIGER data (which I obtained from
> http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/tgrshp2007/tgrshp2007.html)
Could you qualify that a bit for us? How
To answer your question...Yes, our new road dataset is a significant
improvement over current TIGER data (which I obtained from
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/tgrshp2007/tgrshp2007.html)
According to [1] the best options for bulk uploading non-GPS data, is to
use the API directly or JOSM.
I'm trying to. As you might imagine, there's a LOT of data. So far just the
flowlines are about 12 GB worth of PostGIS database. When I converted a
single watershed to OSM data format, the 5MB file from NHD turned into a
42MB OSM file.
My problem is that I have extremely fast disks (which makes
pr
This question applies to the NHD dataset, too. Has your hydro data shown up
in the high-res NHD data yet? I have their complete dump as of April 2008
and was working on importing it to OSM.
If your data is newer, I can replace your watershed data with the existing
watershed data quite easily, sinc
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 11:48 PM, yellowbkpk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm just about done importing the NHD Data into a PostGIS database and can
> begin exporting to OSM format. Is there anyone out there that has already
> imported NHD data or drawn water bodies/rivers themselves that would wan
yellowbkpk wrote:
> I'm just about done importing the NHD Data into a PostGIS database and
> can begin exporting to OSM format. Is there anyone out there that has
> already imported NHD data or drawn water bodies/rivers themselves that
> would want me to skip their areas?
Some rivers connected to
12 matches
Mail list logo
