On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > In my experience, the Tiger CDPs in Florida are really bad (for > instance, the CDP that my house is listed as being in is completely > wrong). I'd imagine the Tiger CDPs of principal cities are probably > somewhat better, but I'd want a little bit more information before > saying that marking Tiger CDPs as cities is a good thing. Personally, > I'd rather we just deleted them (at least in Florida, and without them > being hand-checked by someone familiar with the area).
I hate the CDP boundaries too, and have been slowly phasing them out in favor of landuse polygons in the Orlando area. I've already marked them all as boundary=census (meaning that, as a pleasant side effect, they don't render). But most of the CDPs also have place nodes from GNIS. (The one that is a 'principal city' but doesn't, The Villages, has a landuse polygon: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.9101&lon=-81.9802&zoom=14&layers=M) These would remain even if the boundaries are deleted in the future. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
