Stephen Frost | 1 Apr 02:57 2008
Picon

Re: TIGER/Line Shapefiles released

* Peter Foley (pwfoley <at> gmail.com) wrote:
> For those of you who have been waiting, the Census bureau finally released
> the new TIGER/Line shapefiles.
> The information page and download links are here:
> http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/tgrshp2007/tgrshp2007.html

Yup, *finally*.

> This download page is more wget-friendly:
> http://www2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2007FE/

I think they may have also upgraded their pipe..  I got about 1.41MB/s
(11 Mb/s) for the whole transfer.  It's about 22G all told.  I'll
probably be trying to load it up into PG on one of our servers tomorrow.
It was a bit over 4 hours for me to pull down off of their
ftp2.census.gov ftp site.

lftp ftp2.census.gov:/geo/tiger/TIGER2007FE> mirror .
Total: 3313 directories, 56534 files, 0 symlinks
New: 56520 files, 0 symlinks
22363894773 bytes transferred in 15137 seconds (1.41M/s)

	Enjoy,

		Stephen
_______________________________________________
postgis-users mailing list
postgis-users <at> postgis.refractions.net
(Continue reading)

Dan Putler | 1 Apr 03:06 2008
Picon
Picon

Re: TIGER/Line Shapefiles released

Unfortunately, the data isn't what one would hope for. It appears that
the 2007 release will not include address range or zip code information,
but later releases (2008?) will. Here is the link to the right point in
the FAQ: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/faq.html#18

Dan

On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 20:57 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Peter Foley (pwfoley <at> gmail.com) wrote:
> > For those of you who have been waiting, the Census bureau finally released
> > the new TIGER/Line shapefiles.
> > The information page and download links are here:
> > http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/tgrshp2007/tgrshp2007.html
> 
> Yup, *finally*.
> 
> > This download page is more wget-friendly:
> > http://www2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2007FE/
> 
> I think they may have also upgraded their pipe..  I got about 1.41MB/s
> (11 Mb/s) for the whole transfer.  It's about 22G all told.  I'll
> probably be trying to load it up into PG on one of our servers tomorrow.
> It was a bit over 4 hours for me to pull down off of their
> ftp2.census.gov ftp site.
> 
> lftp ftp2.census.gov:/geo/tiger/TIGER2007FE> mirror .
> Total: 3313 directories, 56534 files, 0 symlinks
> New: 56520 files, 0 symlinks
> 22363894773 bytes transferred in 15137 seconds (1.41M/s)
> 
(Continue reading)

Chris Hermansen | 1 Apr 03:32 2008
Picon

bow-tie polygons and the like

Good people;

I have this odd problem that I hope others may clarify for me.

I have a big ArcInfo polygon coverage produced by a sequence of spatial unions.  One of the component polygon coverages was brutalized somewhere along the way and it has some polygons with triangular and bow-tie inclusions.

Nevertheless, the coverage is clean and sober as far as ArcInfo is concerned.

If you all can picture in your minds a bow-tie polygon |><| where the rightmost | of the bowtie is actually the edge of an enclosing polygon, kind of like:

      |
|><|
      |

(I sure hope that works out visually...)

OK, when I use ogr2ogr to import this coverage into postgis 1.3.1 / geos-3.0.0rc4, I see the following:

  • the containing polygon fails at st_isValid()
  • the st_area() of the containing polygon appears to include the area of the bow-tie polygon, ie it is larger than the area copied over from the ArcInfo coverage by about the same amount as the area of the bow-tie polygon
When I look at this little mess with OpenJump, sure enough the QA routines find the bow-tie and complain.

The long and the short of this is that PostGIS returns slightly more area than ArcInfo does for the same big ugly polygon coverage, because of the apparent loss of these bow ties.

What I'm not sure about is what exactly is wrong here.  Is the bow-tie shape itself illegal?  Or is it the fact that both sides of the bow-tie belong to the same polygon?  Or something else I'm missing?

Thanks for any light anyone can shed on this.

-- Regards, Chris Hermansen · mailto:clh <at> timberline.ca tel:+1.604.714.2878 · fax:+1.604.733.0631 Timberline Natural Resource Group · http://www.timberline.ca 401 · 958 West 8th Avenue · Vancouver BC · Canada · V5Z 1E5 C'est ma façon de parler.
_______________________________________________
postgis-users mailing list
postgis-users <at> postgis.refractions.net
http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
Stephen Frost | 1 Apr 04:18 2008
Picon

Re: TIGER/Line Shapefiles released

Dan,

* Dan Putler (dan.putler <at> sauder.ubc.ca) wrote:
> Unfortunately, the data isn't what one would hope for. It appears that
> the 2007 release will not include address range or zip code information,
> but later releases (2008?) will. Here is the link to the right point in
> the FAQ: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/faq.html#18

Please don't take offense, but I think you're smoking something pretty
good..  That FAQ is about the *most-inclusive* address range
information.  The address ranges are there (I'm looking at them right
now...), they've just been normalized out of the actual shape files and
are only in .dbf files (eg: fe_2007_01133_addr.dbf).  There can now also
be more than one address range for a given edge, which is what they're
talking about in the second paragraph of that FAQ.  Actually, that was
true in the old TIGER/Line data, but it was in RT-6.

I'd encourge you to read the TIGER/Shapefiles relationship documentation
found here:
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/rel_file_desc.pdf
and here:
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/rel_file_desc.txt

I'm still working on importing the data, so perhaps I've missed
something, but I don't think so..

	Thanks,

		Stephen

> On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 20:57 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Peter Foley (pwfoley <at> gmail.com) wrote:
> > > For those of you who have been waiting, the Census bureau finally released
> > > the new TIGER/Line shapefiles.
> > > The information page and download links are here:
> > > http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/tgrshp2007/tgrshp2007.html
> > 
> > Yup, *finally*.
> > 
> > > This download page is more wget-friendly:
> > > http://www2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2007FE/
> > 
> > I think they may have also upgraded their pipe..  I got about 1.41MB/s
> > (11 Mb/s) for the whole transfer.  It's about 22G all told.  I'll
> > probably be trying to load it up into PG on one of our servers tomorrow.
> > It was a bit over 4 hours for me to pull down off of their
> > ftp2.census.gov ftp site.
> > 
> > lftp ftp2.census.gov:/geo/tiger/TIGER2007FE> mirror .
> > Total: 3313 directories, 56534 files, 0 symlinks
> > New: 56520 files, 0 symlinks
> > 22363894773 bytes transferred in 15137 seconds (1.41M/s)
> > 
> > 	Enjoy,
> > 
> > 		Stephen
> > _______________________________________________
> > postgis-users mailing list
> > postgis-users <at> postgis.refractions.net
> > http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
> -- 
> Dan Putler
> Sauder School of Business
> University of British Columbia
> 
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-users mailing list
> postgis-users <at> postgis.refractions.net
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
_______________________________________________
postgis-users mailing list
postgis-users <at> postgis.refractions.net
http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
Dan Putler | 1 Apr 04:35 2008
Picon
Picon

Re: TIGER/Line Shapefiles released

True to an extent. However, I've pulled up fe_2007_06085_addr.dbf (Santa
Clara County, California), and have discovered that one TLID 123180546
has 1246 different right side address records, while TLID 122928561 has
88 right side address records. Cleaning things up so that you could use
a standard address geocoder (which would need the *most-inclusive*
address range) would be an interesting challenge.

On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 22:18 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Dan,
> 
> * Dan Putler (dan.putler <at> sauder.ubc.ca) wrote:
> > Unfortunately, the data isn't what one would hope for. It appears that
> > the 2007 release will not include address range or zip code information,
> > but later releases (2008?) will. Here is the link to the right point in
> > the FAQ: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/faq.html#18
> 
> Please don't take offense, but I think you're smoking something pretty
> good..  That FAQ is about the *most-inclusive* address range
> information.  The address ranges are there (I'm looking at them right
> now...), they've just been normalized out of the actual shape files and
> are only in .dbf files (eg: fe_2007_01133_addr.dbf).  There can now also
> be more than one address range for a given edge, which is what they're
> talking about in the second paragraph of that FAQ.  Actually, that was
> true in the old TIGER/Line data, but it was in RT-6.
> 
> I'd encourge you to read the TIGER/Shapefiles relationship documentation
> found here:
> http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/rel_file_desc.pdf
> and here:
> http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/rel_file_desc.txt
> 
> I'm still working on importing the data, so perhaps I've missed
> something, but I don't think so..
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 
> 		Stephen
> 
> > On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 20:57 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > * Peter Foley (pwfoley <at> gmail.com) wrote:
> > > > For those of you who have been waiting, the Census bureau finally released
> > > > the new TIGER/Line shapefiles.
> > > > The information page and download links are here:
> > > > http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/tgrshp2007/tgrshp2007.html
> > > 
> > > Yup, *finally*.
> > > 
> > > > This download page is more wget-friendly:
> > > > http://www2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2007FE/
> > > 
> > > I think they may have also upgraded their pipe..  I got about 1.41MB/s
> > > (11 Mb/s) for the whole transfer.  It's about 22G all told.  I'll
> > > probably be trying to load it up into PG on one of our servers tomorrow.
> > > It was a bit over 4 hours for me to pull down off of their
> > > ftp2.census.gov ftp site.
> > > 
> > > lftp ftp2.census.gov:/geo/tiger/TIGER2007FE> mirror .
> > > Total: 3313 directories, 56534 files, 0 symlinks
> > > New: 56520 files, 0 symlinks
> > > 22363894773 bytes transferred in 15137 seconds (1.41M/s)
> > > 
> > > 	Enjoy,
> > > 
> > > 		Stephen
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > postgis-users mailing list
> > > postgis-users <at> postgis.refractions.net
> > > http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
> > -- 
> > Dan Putler
> > Sauder School of Business
> > University of British Columbia
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > postgis-users mailing list
> > postgis-users <at> postgis.refractions.net
> > http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-users mailing list
> postgis-users <at> postgis.refractions.net
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
--

-- 
Dan Putler
Sauder School of Business
University of British Columbia
Stephen Frost | 1 Apr 04:45 2008
Picon

Re: TIGER/Line Shapefiles released

* Dan Putler (dan.putler <at> sauder.ubc.ca) wrote:
> True to an extent. However, I've pulled up fe_2007_06085_addr.dbf (Santa
> Clara County, California), and have discovered that one TLID 123180546
> has 1246 different right side address records, while TLID 122928561 has
> 88 right side address records. Cleaning things up so that you could use
> a standard address geocoder (which would need the *most-inclusive*
> address range) would be an interesting challenge.

The main thing is that the address ranges *are* there, and you can
derive the most-inclusive address range from them, but what Census
recommends is that you just scan through all of them.  That's really not
that hard to do.  It's certainly what I'm planning to do with the tiger
geocoder that I maintain as part of the PostGIS extras..

	Thanks,

		Stephen

> On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 22:18 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Dan,
> > 
> > * Dan Putler (dan.putler <at> sauder.ubc.ca) wrote:
> > > Unfortunately, the data isn't what one would hope for. It appears that
> > > the 2007 release will not include address range or zip code information,
> > > but later releases (2008?) will. Here is the link to the right point in
> > > the FAQ: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/faq.html#18
> > 
> > Please don't take offense, but I think you're smoking something pretty
> > good..  That FAQ is about the *most-inclusive* address range
> > information.  The address ranges are there (I'm looking at them right
> > now...), they've just been normalized out of the actual shape files and
> > are only in .dbf files (eg: fe_2007_01133_addr.dbf).  There can now also
> > be more than one address range for a given edge, which is what they're
> > talking about in the second paragraph of that FAQ.  Actually, that was
> > true in the old TIGER/Line data, but it was in RT-6.
> > 
> > I'd encourge you to read the TIGER/Shapefiles relationship documentation
> > found here:
> > http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/rel_file_desc.pdf
> > and here:
> > http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/rel_file_desc.txt
> > 
> > I'm still working on importing the data, so perhaps I've missed
> > something, but I don't think so..
> > 
> > 	Thanks,
> > 
> > 		Stephen
> > 
> > > On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 20:57 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > * Peter Foley (pwfoley <at> gmail.com) wrote:
> > > > > For those of you who have been waiting, the Census bureau finally released
> > > > > the new TIGER/Line shapefiles.
> > > > > The information page and download links are here:
> > > > > http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/tgrshp2007/tgrshp2007.html
> > > > 
> > > > Yup, *finally*.
> > > > 
> > > > > This download page is more wget-friendly:
> > > > > http://www2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2007FE/
> > > > 
> > > > I think they may have also upgraded their pipe..  I got about 1.41MB/s
> > > > (11 Mb/s) for the whole transfer.  It's about 22G all told.  I'll
> > > > probably be trying to load it up into PG on one of our servers tomorrow.
> > > > It was a bit over 4 hours for me to pull down off of their
> > > > ftp2.census.gov ftp site.
> > > > 
> > > > lftp ftp2.census.gov:/geo/tiger/TIGER2007FE> mirror .
> > > > Total: 3313 directories, 56534 files, 0 symlinks
> > > > New: 56520 files, 0 symlinks
> > > > 22363894773 bytes transferred in 15137 seconds (1.41M/s)
> > > > 
> > > > 	Enjoy,
> > > > 
> > > > 		Stephen
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > postgis-users mailing list
> > > > postgis-users <at> postgis.refractions.net
> > > > http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
> > > -- 
> > > Dan Putler
> > > Sauder School of Business
> > > University of British Columbia
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > postgis-users mailing list
> > > postgis-users <at> postgis.refractions.net
> > > http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
> > _______________________________________________
> > postgis-users mailing list
> > postgis-users <at> postgis.refractions.net
> > http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
> -- 
> Dan Putler
> Sauder School of Business
> University of British Columbia
> 
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-users mailing list
> postgis-users <at> postgis.refractions.net
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
_______________________________________________
postgis-users mailing list
postgis-users <at> postgis.refractions.net
http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
Nicolas Ribot | 1 Apr 10:28 2008
Picon

Re: Auto Complete

> Hello everyone,
>
>  Im quite a novice in the Open GIS world, and i would like to know if
>  theres any client out there that connects to PostGIS and has a
>  Autocomplete polygon tool (like in arcGis).
>

Hi,could you describe a little more what autocomplete polygon function
looks like ?

thanks
Nicolas
Nicolas Ribot | 1 Apr 10:39 2008
Picon

Re: bow-tie polygons and the like

>  Good people;
>
>  I have this odd problem that I hope others may clarify for me.
>
>  I have a big ArcInfo polygon coverage produced by a sequence of spatial
> unions.  One of the component polygon coverages was brutalized somewhere
> along the way and it has some polygons with triangular and bow-tie
> inclusions.
>
>  Nevertheless, the coverage is clean and sober as far as ArcInfo is
> concerned.
>
>  If you all can picture in your minds a bow-tie polygon |><| where the
> rightmost | of the bowtie is actually the edge of an enclosing polygon, kind
> of like:
>
>        |
>  |><|
>        |
>
>  (I sure hope that works out visually...)
>
>  OK, when I use ogr2ogr to import this coverage into postgis 1.3.1 /
> geos-3.0.0rc4, I see the following:
>
>
>
> the containing polygon fails at st_isValid()
> the st_area() of the containing polygon appears to include the area of the
> bow-tie polygon, ie it is larger than the area copied over from the ArcInfo
> coverage by about the same amount as the area of the bow-tie polygon When I
> look at this little mess with OpenJump, sure enough the QA routines find the
> bow-tie and complain.
>
>  The long and the short of this is that PostGIS returns slightly more area
> than ArcInfo does for the same big ugly polygon coverage, because of the
> apparent loss of these bow ties.
>
>  What I'm not sure about is what exactly is wrong here.  Is the bow-tie
> shape itself illegal?  Or is it the fact that both sides of the bow-tie
> belong to the same polygon?  Or something else I'm missing?
>
>  Thanks for any light anyone can shed on this.
>
>

Hi,
I will only give a partial answer:
yes, a bowtie polygon is invalid for PostGIS (as stated in the OGC
SFSQL documentation, polygon's boundary cannot cross itself).
If you want to represent this with valid polygons, you will need 2
triangles touching at one point.

HTH
nicolas
George Silva | 1 Apr 16:04 2008
Picon

Re: Auto Complete

Sure!

Imagine that you have a polygon already drawn in your screen. You need 
to make another polygon that doesnt overlap the older one, but has one 
of the edges coincident.

Let me find a screenshot of the tool. See pngs attached.

Thanks for your attention

Att.

George Silva

Nicolas Ribot escreveu:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>>  Im quite a novice in the Open GIS world, and i would like to know if
>>  theres any client out there that connects to PostGIS and has a
>>  Autocomplete polygon tool (like in arcGis).
>>
>>     
>
> Hi,could you describe a little more what autocomplete polygon function
> looks like ?
>
> thanks
> Nicolas
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-users mailing list
> postgis-users <at> postgis.refractions.net
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
>
>   
_______________________________________________
postgis-users mailing list
postgis-users <at> postgis.refractions.net
http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
Sune Edmund Pedersen | 1 Apr 16:18 2008
Picon

RE: Auto Complete

Hi, for an explanation look at http://gis.washington.edu/esrm250/lessons/create_f_layers/exercise/index.html and search for auto-complete

On PostGIS we normally implement the functionality in an auto-clip function in either the service layer of the web-application or in the database. It is a rule about "no overlap" you would want to enforce on a layer/feature type independently of the client.

However in some cases it a nice functionality when creating adjacent features. In SpatialEdit we have implemented it a little different as you can clip a feature with any other feature. It does not provide the same degree of automation, but allows you to clip with any feature from any layer outside the concept of Map Topology. 

Best regards
Sune Edmund Pedersen
http://www.spatialedit.com


-----Original Message-----
From: postgis-users-bounces <at> postgis.refractions.net [mailto:postgis-users-bounces <at> postgis.refractions.net] On Behalf Of Nicolas Ribot

Sent: 01 April 2008 10:29
To: PostGIS Users Discussion
Subject: Re: [postgis-users] Auto Complete

> Hello everyone,
>
>  Im quite a novice in the Open GIS world, and i would like to know if
>  theres any client out there that connects to PostGIS and has a
>  Autocomplete polygon tool (like in arcGis).
>

Hi,could you describe a little more what autocomplete polygon function
looks like ?

thanks
Nicolas
_______________________________________________
postgis-users mailing list
postgis-users <at> postgis.refractions.net
http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users

_______________________________________________
postgis-users mailing list
postgis-users <at> postgis.refractions.net
http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users

Gmane