On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Rich Shepard wrote:
Looking for the v.in.ogr man page I was reminded that there is a v.in.e00.
Should I use the latter rather than the former?
OK. Looks like I want v.in.e00 because the v.in.ogr man page explicitly
cites .shp and MapInfo files.
As a suggestion,
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Rich Shepard rshep...@appl-ecosys.com wrote:
Looking for the v.in.ogr man page I was reminded that there is a v.in.e00.
Should I use the latter rather than the former?
I'd suggest yet.
Tried running v.in.e00. After entering the .e00 file name and specifying
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Moskovitz, Bob wrote:
I've noticed that using avcimport (which converts .e00 files to binary
coverages) greatly speeds up import of .e00 files when you use ogr2ogr.
So v.in.ogr probably uses avcimport for this reason.
Bob,
I read the opposite: that avcimport converts
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Markus Neteler wrote:
I'd suggest yet.
Markus,
Yes, there's a great difference: speedier running v.in.e00.
That's available here:
http://avce00.maptools.org/avce00/
Got both of them. The source comes up with the error message ... very
helpful!
(in theory OGR
Message-
From: grass-user-boun...@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:grass-user-boun...@lists.osgeo.org]on Behalf Of Rich Shepard
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 4:51 PM
To: grass-us...@lists.osgeo.org
Subject: [GRASS-user] v.in.e00 vs. v.in.ogr
Looking for the v.in.ogr man page I
