On 20 Feb 2007, at 08:08, Tom Russo wrote:
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 09:50:57PM +0000, we recorded a bogon-
computron collision of the <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> flavor, containing:
So, what needs to be done to generate them? I hate to see a machine
idle. If someone could talk me through the procedure, I could
generate them on the machine they are now sitting on.
It's in README.MAPS, right after where it describes how to
run the ogr2ogr for the linear features, but what's there is pretty
sparse.
Thanks Tom,
Ok, I see whats being done,
I might wait a bit to see if Derrick sees the thread, it doesn't make
sense to do the work twice, so if he had a clever script done
already, that would be very useful.
If someone wants something specific, I'm sure I could do it by hand
if required.
Regards
John
Each of the original TIGER/Line directories needs to be processed a
second time using the "Xastir-tigerpoly.py" script to make the
additional
polygon shapefiles. That script requires gdal with python support,
and can
be found in the scripts directory of the xastir source code. I
also recommend
using the "-d" flag to dissolve boundaries between polygons with
the same
name, or things like parks and other major polygon features will
generally be
made up of many small, individually labeled polygons.
When I first mapped out the process for doing the conversions I
wrote a
simple script that did the ogr2ogr and the Xastir-tigerpoly.py for
each
of the tiger files for a whole state, and extracted the county name
from
the ".MET" file to use as the file name. I think I still have that
script
lying around at work and can provide it here (it's very simple and
never
seemed significant enough to add to the scripts directory, and I
was lazy
and hardcoded some of the title parsing stuff in a way that had to be
hand-edited for each state). I think Derrick Brashear did
something a little
more clever with it when he did the 2004 files to be placed on
xastir.tamu.edu.
On 19 Feb 2007, at 21:15, Jason Winningham wrote:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 3:05 PM, Jason Winningham wrote:
(except for the missing polygons).
I should clarify: the polygon data is generated via a different
method, and results in a separate shapelib. Again, there is
nothing wrong with the shapefiles you generated.
--
Tom Russo KM5VY SAR502 DM64ux http://www.swcp.com/
~russo/
Tijeras, NM QRPL#1592 K2#398 SOC#236 AHTB#1 http://kevan.org/
brain.cgi?DDTNM
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all
you get is
one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy,
oooh, oooh,
oooh, the sky is the limit!" --- The Tick
--
John Ronan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, +353-51-302938
Telecommunications Software & Systems Group, http://www.tssg.org
_______________________________________________
Xastir mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xastir.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xastir
