No subject

[grass-lists-owner at max.cecer.army.mil]

***** UNDELIVERABLE MAIL sent to sjw, being returned by riker!root *****
mail: Error # 8 'Invalid recipient' encountered on system riker

Received: from chekhov.photon.com by riker.photon.com via SMTP (931110.SGI.ANONFTP/931108.SGI.ANONFTP)
	for sjw id AA09463; Thu, 9 Jun 94 11:08:05 -0700
Received: from max.cecer.army.mil by chekhov.photon.com via SMTP (931110.SGI.ANONFTP/931108.SGI.ANONFTP)
	for sjw at riker.photon.com id AA01660; Thu, 9 Jun 94 11:07:47 -0700
Received: from amber.cecer.army.mil (amber.cecer.army.mil [129.229.32.40]) by max.cecer.army.mil (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA00891; Thu, 9 Jun 1994 13:03:20 -0500
Received: from max.cecer.army.mil by amber.cecer.army.mil (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA28236; Thu, 9 Jun 94 13:02:34 CDT
Received: from pike.cecer.army.mil (pike.cecer.army.mil [129.229.32.28]) by max.cecer.army.mil (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA00801 for <grassu-people at max.cecer.army.mil>; Thu, 9 Jun 1994 13:02:36 -0500
Received: from amber.cecer.army.mil (amber.cecer.army.mil [129.229.32.40]) by pike.cecer.army.mil (8.6.9/8.6.6) with SMTP id NAA14232 for <grassu-people>; Thu, 9 Jun 1994 13:02:33 -0500
Received: from max.cecer.army.mil by amber.cecer.army.mil (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA28230; Thu, 9 Jun 94 13:02:29 CDT
Received: from isgate.is (isgate.is [130.208.165.63]) by max.cecer.army.mil (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA00770 for <grassu-list at max.cecer.army.mil>; Thu, 9 Jun 1994 13:02:24 -0500
Received: from complex.is by isgate.is (8.6.8/ISnet/14-10-91); Thu, 9 Jun 1994 13:01:42 GMT
Received: by complex.is (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C)
	id AA14760; Thu, 9 Jun 94 13:02:42 GMT
Sender: grass-lists-owner at max.cecer.army.mil
Reply-To: grassu-list at max.cecer.army.mil
Precedence: Bulk
Sender: grass-lists-owner at moon.cecer.army.mil.
Reply-To: grassu-list at moon.cecer.army.mil.
Precedence: Bulk
To: info-grass-user at isgate.is
Path: complex!isgate!sunic!trane.uninett.no!eunet.no!nuug!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!mgfleury
From: mgfleury at netcom.com (Mark Fleury)
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gis,info.grass.user
Subject: Re: zipcode boundaries from Tiger
Message-Id: <mgfleuryCr4M95.C2u at netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 94 10:53:29 GMT 01:00:00 +0000 (GMT)
References: <2t4vd9$i9u at news.udel.edu>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Lines: 13


My understanding from talking with Census is that ZIP code info not a part
of TIGER.  Some features (<1%) may have ZIP info.  My efforts to build ZIP
polygons produced a few disconnected line segments.  Census would like to
include this info in TIGER2000 but are under severe budget limitations.
Also: In detail ZIP boundaries are continually changing to meet mail 
delivery needs.
 If ZIPs are located between street blocks (along allyways) as are many
voter districts, the location would have to be moved to an existing TIGER
feature (not correct) or new featrues would have to be added to TIGER.
This could nearly double the size of highly urban county files - would it
be possible to handle Los Angeles County at over 300Mbytes?  And TIGER
itself would increase at $250/CD-rom.
I too wish the ZIP data was in TIGER, but doing so might create a nightmare.