We have two different 'locations' stores. One called
'districts' (only name and no geographical information) mapped to
faces and the other called location (stores a latitude and longitude
pair) that maps to articles. In Chennai, we had discussed to unify the
them so that we can display all this information on the Maps page. The
idea was to locate all 'blocks' and 'tehsils' and integrate them to
our articles and faces. I haven't found a good source for blocks and
tehsils but managed to locate all the districts [2]. Would it be fine
if we started with districts and moved deeper when we get a reliable
source for blocks? This is a huge change requiring both data migration
and enabling GIS functionality on the DB.
We have two different 'locations' stores. One called 'districts' (only name and no geographical information) mapped to faces and the other called location (stores a latitude and longitude pair) that maps to articles. In Chennai, we had discussed to unify the them so that we can display all this information on the Maps page. The idea was to locate all 'blocks' and 'tehsils' and integrate them to our articles and faces. I haven't found a good source for blocks and tehsils but managed to locate all the districts [2]. Would it be fine if we started with districts and moved deeper when we get a reliable source for blocks? This is a huge change requiring both data migration and enabling GIS functionality on the DB.