Updated Fairfax Data #132
Updated Fairfax Data #132
Conversation
…, this needs to be different from the ones we display because Fairfax City and Falls Church do not have seperate bike infrastructure files.
…urisdictional boundaries.
…t doesn't error with an out of memory exception.
…nty trails to include in our cut of data. Now includes only Asphalt Trails with a non-blank name. Excludes concrete trails (which turned out to be primarily sidewalks, and non-named trails which are generally too short to be useful for transportation purposes. This is a better strarting point.
|
@alongthepike, I had a good talk with @alulsh about this, and it sounds like she touched base. I first want to acknowledge that this is your time, it's valuable, and you're donating it. I'm super grateful for all your contributions. This set of revisions is ultimately what we need in a map but I want to hold off until the same kind of attn is paid to all the county data. As discussed many, many, times, most counties have lots of little junky trails and corridors that shouldn't be here. But, consistency is helpful. And work you've taken on here builds a powerful argument for our/WABA/thetechbikecommunity demands for better and more consistent standards from our data. I hope this stringent, and much more accurate revision is a useful talking point in tomorrow's presentation. And I'm excited by the prospect that this level of scrutiny might eventually be applied to all the data sets. |
This filters Fairfax Trails much more stringently to try to filter out a lot of the junky little trails that don't go anywhere useful. This also includes the buffer clipping changes from #131 so as long as you're ok with the more stringent Fairfax filtering, this PR supersedes that one.