You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The 2012 here refers to the year that these districts came into effect, and is the most current districts. "At Large" districts, where only 1 person represents an entire state or territory, are coded with a district number of 0 (e.g. WY-0 and PR-0).
I expected this to mean that a given year's folder only contained states whose district boundaries were changed in that year. The 2018 folder has only PA, but 2016 has everybody (not just VA, FL, and NC). Which way is intended? Either way, if the "and is the most current districts" line could be clarified to match the expectation, I think that would be good.
If the intention was to avoid data duplication in the repo, here's what I'd suggest: What are the odds that a special directory (now, current, etc.) could be created in cds that contained symlinks to the current map files? It would link to the 2012 districts for NY, to 2016 for FL, and (soon) to 2018 for PA. Then you could drop the states from 2016 who do not have changes and avoid adding everyone (again) to 2018.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
michaelblyons
changed the title
Clarify ReadMe
Clarify ReadMe on newest data location
Dec 7, 2018
Total drive by here: In general I would avoid anything that labels data with relative things like current. They inevitably get out of date. Instead, just label with the absolute years/dates the data is for, and then it is the client's responsibility to get the maximum/closest to the current year.
In the ReadMe, it says
I expected this to mean that a given year's folder only contained states whose district boundaries were changed in that year. The 2018 folder has only PA, but 2016 has everybody (not just VA, FL, and NC). Which way is intended? Either way, if the "and is the most current districts" line could be clarified to match the expectation, I think that would be good.
If the intention was to avoid data duplication in the repo, here's what I'd suggest: What are the odds that a special directory (
now
,current
, etc.) could be created incds
that contained symlinks to the current map files? It would link to the 2012 districts for NY, to 2016 for FL, and (soon) to 2018 for PA. Then you could drop the states from 2016 who do not have changes and avoid adding everyone (again) to 2018.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: