On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Mike N. <[email protected]> wrote: > I discovered some waterways in the Tiger 2008 DB that have not been > imported > into my area of SC. Before I bring in the water bodies that I know about > and can verify, is there any other large scale import of NHD data in > progress that I would conflict with? > > Is it better to use NHD directly instead of Tiger data for waterways?
For me, the order of preference for hydrological data imports would be: 1. Local/county data 2. NHD high-res data 3. TIGER data
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
