<div dir="ltr">I think point features are definitely the way to go here - areas are nice but have the drawback of being to rigid a delineation, as well as being more difficult to map and maintain.</div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Bryce Nesbitt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bryce2@obviously.com" target="_blank">bryce2@obviously.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Martijn van Exel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:m@rtijn.org" target="_blank">m@rtijn.org</a>></span> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">As for Bryce's observation - Zillow does not have overlapping polygons as far as I know, so it is by its nature sort of rigid - but then again this is probably what they require for their use case, as there would be no way to disambiguate.</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>That said, neighborhoods are known to be fuzzy concepts, and getting a person close to the right one has value. The zillow data for example could be brought in as point features. While it seems a shame, it would remove that whole issue of boundaries. Often (not always, but often) the neighborhood does in fact have a well defined central core.</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-us mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Martijn van Exel<br><a href="http://oegeo.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">http://oegeo.wordpress.com/</a><br><a href="http://openstreetmap.us/" target="_blank">http://openstreetmap.us/</a>
</div>