[Talk-us] Fwd: Question about incorrect data for an administrative area
lordsutch at gmail.com
Wed Oct 16 00:01:20 UTC 2013
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Jay Boyer <boyer at snhdmail.org> wrote:
> I have been looking at the OSM data for Las Vegas and there are some
> serious problems for it. The OSM boundary for Las Vegas encompasses about
> half of the city. Certain areas of Las Vegas, including Paradise,
> Enterprise, Spring Valley and probably others are not within the city
> boundaries defined in OSM. To fix this I need to expand the Las Vegas
> boundaries to encompass of these sections. I have been looking and cannot
> find a way to do this efficiently. Does anybody know of a way (aside from
> doing this manually) of expanding and area to encompass another?****
Bear in mind that what is legally the city of Las Vegas and what people
informally call "Las Vegas" are two different things; most of the Strip is
in unincorporated Clark County, not the city of Las Vegas proper. See eg
Defining an alt_name or loc_name of "Las Vegas" on each of the surrounding
CDP boundaries/relations may help Nominatim geocode these cases better.
But the CDPs are not part of the city (aside from any areas that may have
been annexed, which should be reflected in the new TIGER 2013 boundaries)
and should not be conflated with the city boundary.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us