nagle@well.UUCP (John Nagle) (06/04/89)
Highly accurate digital roadmaps with detailed house-numbering data
are produced by Etak, Inc., in Menlo Park, CA. Etak makes these for their
automatic vehicle navigation displays, but they are available for other
purposes, and there are sources of PC-based software capable of using them.
For example, you can feed in a mailing list and see all the addresses
appear as dots on a map. The system can pan and zoom rapidly over the
entire map database. Map databases are available for most East and West
Coast U.S. metropolitan areas, out to the outer suburbs, plus various
other locations. Much of Germany is available, as is the Tokyo area.
Prices for a single metropolitan area are quite reasonable.
This is high-quality data, with the primary sources being USGS maps
and aerial photographs. It's not just rehashed commercial roadmap data.
John Naglemilo@ndmath.UUCP (Greg Corson) (06/05/89)
From article <11982@well.UUCP>, by nagle@well.UUCP (John Nagle): > > Highly accurate digital roadmaps with detailed house-numbering data > are produced by Etak, Inc., in Menlo Park, CA. Etak makes these for their . . > other locations. Much of Germany is available, as is the Tokyo area. > Prices for a single metropolitan area are quite reasonable. > > > John Nagle Can you define what you mean by "Prices are quite reasonable"? In my experience that could mean anywhere from $20-$20,000. Greg Corson 19141 Summers Drive South Bend, IN 46637 (219) 277-5306 {pur-ee,rutgers,uunet}!iuvax!ndmath!milo
eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (06/06/89)
In article <11982@well.UUCP> nagle@well.UUCP (John Nagle) writes: > > Highly accurate digital roadmaps with detailed house-numbering data >are produced by > . . . > > This is high-quality data, with the primary sources being USGS maps >and aerial photographs. It's not just rehashed commercial roadmap data. Sorry, but for some reason "Highly" accurate and "high"-quality don't jib with USGS or aerial photos. I saw another follow up on thse cost. That's the key. The USGS maps have quality, but you don't build houses on their low resolution. The point is that different qualities are used for different purposes. Aerial photos have numerous problems to prevent them from ever being used as maps. You only need look in the yellow pages under aerial surveys, and surveyors to see that maps with vertical resolutions to feet and even inches are made all the time. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene Live free or die.
jimm@amiga.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) (06/07/89)
In article <3867@eos.UUCP> eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes: )In article <11982@well.UUCP> nagle@well.UUCP (John Nagle) writes: )> This is high-quality data, with the primary sources being USGS maps )>and aerial photographs. It's not just rehashed commercial roadmap data. ) )Sorry, but for some reason "Highly" accurate and "high"-quality )don't jib with USGS or aerial photos. I saw another follow up on thse cost. )That's the key. The USGS maps have quality, but you don't build houses )on their low resolution. The point is that different qualities are used )for different purposes. Aerial photos have numerous problems to )prevent them from ever being used as maps. There is a standard basis from which Etak and others in the computer roadmap business began and enhanced mightily. It is the result of some work done for like the 1960 census or something (my details will suck this time). I'm not sure if you get them from USGS or a different organization. They are raw, and inconsistent. There is a new format "coming" from the same source, something called the TIGER database. It should be better, but I'm sure coverage od different areas will creep out over time. Sorry I know longer have my notes on the several map data vendors out there. One of them is in Lyme (NH, CT, ...?). Useful, eh? jimm -- Jim Mackraz, I and I Computing "He's hidden now, but you can see {cbmvax,well,oliveb}!amiga!jimm The bubbles where he breathes." - Shriekback Opinions are my own. Comments are not to be taken as Commodore official policy.
jallen@netxdev.DHL.COM (John Allen) (06/14/89)
In article <3895@amiga.UUCP> jimm@cloyd.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) writes: >There is a standard basis from which Etak and others in the computer >roadmap business began and enhanced mightily. It is the result of some >work done for like the 1960 census or something (my details will suck >this time). I'm not sure if you get them from USGS or a different >organization. They are raw, and inconsistent. I thought ETAK held their mapping processes as strictly proprietary. When I visited their offices, someone rushed ahead to make sure the door to the map room was closed before we walked by... 8-) The data referred to is the Census Bureau DIME files. They are of inconsistent quality at best, and several years out of date. On the bright side, a 6250 BPI tape, 90% full, cost (last year) only $175.00. As I recall, most of the Washington DC and San Francisco areas fit on one tape. >There is a new format "coming" from the same source, something called >the TIGER database. It should be better, but I'm sure coverage od >different areas will creep out over time. This format is only available in test form, for a small town in the midwest. I understand that it will be several years before the entire US is available. Also, as I understand it, the TIGER data is being built up from USGS data, and there will be much more of it than of the DIME data. I estimated that the entire US DIME database could be acquired for under $20,000. The TIGER data will be much more costly. John Allen ======================================================================= NetExpress Communications, Inc. usenet: jallen@netxcom.DHL.COM 1953 Gallows Road, Suite 300 phone: (703) 749-2238 Vienna, Virginia, 22182 telex: 901 976 ======================================================================= John Allen ======================================================================= NetExpress Communications, Inc. usenet: uunet!netxcom!jallen 1953 Gallows Road, Suite 300 phone: (703) 749-2238
oj@apollo.COM (Ellis Oliver Jones) (06/15/89)
In article <1284@netxcom.UUCP> jallen@netxdev.UUCP (John Allen) writes: >The data referred to is the Census Bureau DIME files. About nine years ago, I had the great privilege ;-) of working with the Census Bureau's GBF/DIME files. They're pretty good for what they are. What they are is: * 160 bytes per record (I think, this is hazy in my memory) * One record per block per city street, and others for borders, water features, railroad rights-of-way, Interstate highways, etc. * Each record contains such things as: - Street name - House numbers, left side and right side - Census tract/block numbers, left side and right side - Block endpoints in lat/long, state plane coordinates, and (I think) Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates. No elevations are provided (you get x and y, but no z) These files get pretty big. There are a lot of blocks and streets in places like Chicago. They covered, in '79, only cities ("Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas"). Not surprisingly, areas which have experienced massive growth have less accurate GBF/DIME files. The census bureau uses these tapes for such things as geocoding (making maplike plots) of census data, and verification of address records (to make sure the census takers know where every house is). In 1979, the quality of these data bases (as measured by completeness, internal consistency, and positional accuracy) was widely varying. Between censuses, each locality held a large amount of responsibility for maintaining the data bases. Some localities used the data for municipal planning; these files were often excellent. Others didn't care at all, and the files showed it. I'm convinced that some of the position data on some maps was digitized from USGS quadrangle maps with a mouse. When everybody went into panic mode for the '80 census, the quality improved dramatically. This didn't just happen, but took the hard work of large gangs of digitizers and cartographic quality inspectors. Even when they're at their best, the plotted output from these files isn't very pretty: they're simple stick maps, the wireframe of the mapping business. If you want to make nice-looking maps, you may want to try USGS data, or Defense Mapping Agency data if you can get it. GBF/DIME files are quite good for address matching (e.g. "Estimate the latitude and longitude of 750 Fifth Avenue, New York City") as long as you can tolerate spotty coverage and inaccurate positioning. /Ollie Jones (speaking for myself, not necessarily Apollo Division, H-P).