Opened 21 months ago

Last modified 7 days ago

#5367 new defect

Tiger extension loading invalid geometries

Reported by: jnu Owned by: robe
Priority: medium Milestone: PostGIS 3.6.0
Component: tiger geocoder Version: 3.2.x
Keywords: Cc:

Description

I discovered a small number of invalid geometries among the data loaded with the Tiger CENSUS data loader. The place table contains 4 invalid entries, per ST_IsInvalid:

SELECT plcidfp, namelsad, St_IsInvalidReason(the_geom) reason
FROM tiger.place
WHERE St_IsInvalid(the_geom);

 plcidfp |       namelsad        |                 reason
 --------+-----------------------+---------------------------------------
 0427820 | Glendale city         | Holes are nested[-112.40957 33.529845]
 4740000 | Knoxville city        | Holes are nested[-84.082463 35.893129]
 1738570 | Joliet city           | Holes are nested[-88.074056 41.510616]
 3771940 | Wesley Chapel village | Holes are nested[-80.682658 34.989184]

There were 120 invalid geometries in the zcta5 table as well. Other tables appeared free from errors (state, county, cousub, tract, bg).

I've run St_MakeValid(the_geom) as a workaround. I don't believe these errors originated in my application, though I don't know for certain they are introduced by tiger extension, either.

Change History (6)

comment:1 by robe, 21 months ago

I'll take a look and see. The places table comes straight from tiger census data. No massaging is done on that for the geometries, so I would guess those errors are coming from census.

I assume you are using 2022 data set? You can check the tiger.loader_variables if you are not sure.

Unfortunately I don't have the full set of states loaded, but I can add this step to the processing moving forward.

By chance do you have all states loaded or just: AZ,IL,NC,TN

I'm not seeing any invalids in the MA set, but perhaps there aren't any.

The zcta5 set I am a bit surprised that one has invalids in it as that I do process to split and across state boundaries and thought I had a make valid step in there, but perhaps not.

Last edited 21 months ago by robe (previous) (diff)

comment:2 by robe, 21 months ago

Priority: lowmedium

comment:3 by robe, 20 months ago

Milestone: PostGIS 3.3.3PostGIS 3.4.0

comment:4 by robe, 18 months ago

Milestone: PostGIS 3.4.0PostGIS 3.5.0

comment:5 by robe, 3 months ago

Milestone: PostGIS 3.5.0PostGIS 3.4.4

comment:6 by robe, 7 days ago

Milestone: PostGIS 3.4.4PostGIS 3.6.0
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.