Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] changeset: 89516909

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

I see.

Considering that, I've reverted my changes.

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 9:41 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> i was told i could not use do to licence GIS to.
>
>
>
> Tuesday, August 18, 2020 8:38 PM -05:00 from Brian M. Sperlongano <
> zelonew...@gmail.com>:
>
> All,
>
> I fixed this boundary relation and also one neighboring town (Wheeling,
> IL) using the Cook County, Illinois GIS as the data source, and re-used all
> of the original boundary relations.  Unfortunately it appears that all of
> Cook County needs to be updated to reflect the county GIS data (found here:
> https://hub-cookcountyil.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/boundary-open-data).
> Those census polygons are fairly close, but different.  The two border
> towns I checked just north in Lake County appear to line up perfectly with
> the Cook County data so this might just be a Cook County issue.  This is a
> start but there's lots of work to do there.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 9:10 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> > wrote:
>
> lines no relations yes
>
>
>
> Tuesday, August 18, 2020 7:52 PM -05:00 from Mike Thompson <
> miketh...@gmail.com
> >:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> >
> wrote:
>
> i will fix anything that i missed but the lines are truth.
>
> and it is not a polygon,
>
> As far as I know, boundary relations have to, in effect, be polygons, in
> other words, they have to close.
>
>
> and i broke nothing i fixed what the other guy broke and did it all by
> hand.
>
> The boundary relation (126598)  is currently broken. for one thing, it
> doesn't close at the location of Williamsberg Square residential area.
> ___
> talk mailing list
> t...@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] changeset: 89516909

[80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us]

i was told i could not use do to licence GIS to.

  
>Tuesday, August 18, 2020 8:38 PM -05:00 from Brian M. Sperlongano 
>:
> 
>All,
> 
>I fixed this boundary relation and also one neighboring town (Wheeling, IL) 
>using the Cook County, Illinois GIS as the data source, and re-used all of the 
>original boundary relations.  Unfortunately it appears that all of Cook County 
>needs to be updated to reflect the county GIS data (found here:  
>https://hub-cookcountyil.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/boundary-open-data ).  
>Those census polygons are fairly close, but different.  The two border towns I 
>checked just north in Lake County appear to line up perfectly with the Cook 
>County data so this might just be a Cook County issue.  This is a start but 
>there's lots of work to do there.
>   
>On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 9:10 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us < 
>talk-us@openstreetmap.org > wrote:
>>lines no relations yes
>>
>>  
>>>Tuesday, August 18, 2020 7:52 PM -05:00 from Mike Thompson < 
>>>miketh...@gmail.com >:
>>> 
>>>   
>>>On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us < 
>>>talk-us@openstreetmap.org > wrote:
i will fix anything that i missed but the lines are truth.
 
and it is not a polygon,
>>>As far as I know, boundary relations have to, in effect, be polygons, in 
>>>other words, they have to close.
>>> 
and i broke nothing i fixed what the other guy broke and did it all by hand.
>>>The boundary relation ( 126598 )  is currently broken. for one thing, it 
>>>doesn't close at the location of Williamsberg Square residential area.
>>>___
>>>talk mailing list
>>>t...@openstreetmap.org
>>>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  ___
>>Talk-us mailing list
>>Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>___
>Talk-us mailing list
>Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us 
 
 
 
 ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] changeset: 89516909

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

All,

I fixed this boundary relation and also one neighboring town (Wheeling, IL)
using the Cook County, Illinois GIS as the data source, and re-used all of
the original boundary relations.  Unfortunately it appears that all of Cook
County needs to be updated to reflect the county GIS data (found here:
https://hub-cookcountyil.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/boundary-open-data).
Those census polygons are fairly close, but different.  The two border
towns I checked just north in Lake County appear to line up perfectly with
the Cook County data so this might just be a Cook County issue.  This is a
start but there's lots of work to do there.


On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 9:10 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> lines no relations yes
>
>
>
> Tuesday, August 18, 2020 7:52 PM -05:00 from Mike Thompson <
> miketh...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> > wrote:
>
> i will fix anything that i missed but the lines are truth.
>
> and it is not a polygon,
>
> As far as I know, boundary relations have to, in effect, be polygons, in
> other words, they have to close.
>
>
> and i broke nothing i fixed what the other guy broke and did it all by
> hand.
>
> The boundary relation (126598)  is currently broken. for one thing, it
> doesn't close at the location of Williamsberg Square residential area.
> ___
> talk mailing list
> t...@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] changeset: 89516909

[80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us]

lines no relations yes

  
>Tuesday, August 18, 2020 7:52 PM -05:00 from Mike Thompson 
>:
> 
>   
>On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us < 
>talk-us@openstreetmap.org > wrote:
>>i will fix anything that i missed but the lines are truth.
>> 
>>and it is not a polygon,
>As far as I know, boundary relations have to, in effect, be polygons, in other 
>words, they have to close.
> 
>>and i broke nothing i fixed what the other guy broke and did it all by hand.
>The boundary relation ( 126598 )  is currently broken. for one thing, it 
>doesn't close at the location of Williamsberg Square residential area.
>___
>talk mailing list
>t...@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk 
 
 
 
 ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> i will fix anything that i missed but the lines are truth.
>
> and it is not a polygon,
>
As far as I know, boundary relations have to, in effect, be polygons, in
other words, they have to close.


> and i broke nothing i fixed what the other guy broke and did it all by
> hand.
>
The boundary relation (126598)  is currently broken. for one thing, it
doesn't close at the location of Williamsberg Square residential area.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us]

i will fix anything that i missed but the lines are truth.
 
and it is not a polygon, and i broke nothing i fixed what the other guy broke 
and did it all by hand.
  
>Tuesday, August 18, 2020 7:36 PM -05:00 from James Umbanhowar 
>:
> 
>I'm going to bow out of this discussion. The boundary relation is
>broken again. I'm not trying to be confrontational, but my attempts to
>figure out what sources this user is using and to reconcile this with
>what they are editing appear to be antagonizing them. I have also lost
>my patience so I will probably not be the most understanding anymore.
>
>James
> 
>On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 20:23 -0400, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>> You still aren't giving us very much to go on. There's obviously
>> some boundary that you consider to be inarguably correct. You need
>> either to enter the data yourself or tell us where to find it and
>> where the discrepancies are.
>>
>> Sometimes that involves quite a lot of research. I have a ton of data
>> conflicts about boundaries near me, and only rarely do I have the
>> time to pursue the issues. If often involves reconciling half a dozen
>> supposedly authoritative sources, as shown in
>>  https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ke9tv/diary/391486 . It's very
>> rarely as simple as 'agency X is wrong and agency Y is right'. It's
>> often 'agency X has lines that reflect current annexation, but part
>> of their boundary is in NAD27 and part WGS84. Agency Y misses a
>> recent annexation but has got the datums right. Agency Z has the
>> artificial lines right, but is totally off base with the shorelines.
>> Agency W appears to have digitized from a small-scale map and has a
>> ton of quantization error.'
>>
>> It's not a political boundary, but
>>  https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ke9tv/diary/42951 shows another
>> example of the level of cadastral research that's often required to
>> sort these things out.
>>
>> By the way, I _do_ occasionally go out into the field and try to
>> recover old survey marks to sort these things out. For the
>> inconsistent corner between Lost Clove Unit and Big Indian Wilderness
>> at  https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/attachments/20191205/osm-vs-nysgis.png I
>> simply gave up. There are cairns at both corners. If the professional
>> surveyors couldn't close the line, what hope do I have? (Nobody
>> actually cares. It's wilderness anyway.)
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:03 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
>>  talk-us@openstreetmap.org > wrote:
>> > FYI;
>> >
>> > for all of you who are not in country and do not understand about
>> > usa city bounders.
>> >
>> >  https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/contact.html
>> >
>> > and did you read what the other guy said, this is the census data
>> > not true map data.
>> >
>> >  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89598349 .
>> >
>> > > Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:52 AM -05:00 from James Umbanhowar <
>> > >  jumba...@gmail.com >:
>> > >
>> > > What link are you using for this? I downloaded the places
>> > > boundary
>> > > information from here:
>> > >  https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/geo/shapefiles/index.php
>> > >
>> > > As I said, I'm happy to change, but I can't change without actual
>> > > information.
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 18:43 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > i am looking at the TIRGER web, show’s the real map online and
>> > > > nothing you did matches.
>> > > >
>> > > > i live here and a block away from the edens spur just saying.
>> > > >
>> > > > > Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:38 AM -05:00 from James
>> > > Umbanhowar <
>> > > > >  jumba...@gmail.com >:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It would probably be best if these suggestions were added in
>> > > the
>> > > > > changeset comments, as they don't need to be discussed on the
>> > > > > mailing
>> > > > > list.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 11:36 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote:
>> > > > > > I'm the person who made the changes and am happy to adjust
>> > > the
>> > > > > map to
>> > > > > > better authoritative data or information. My motivation for
>> > > this
>> > > > > was
>> > > > > > to fix a mangled boundary relation that didn't have
>> > > consistent
>> > > > > outer
>> > > > > > and inner members. The changes came in two changesets,
>> > > > > >  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89220282 and
>> > > > > >  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89516909
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > The first changeset just made the relation consistent with
>> > > outer
>> > > > > ways
>> > > > > > and inner ways. I preserved all the ways that were in the
>> > > > > relation
>> > > > > > that
>> > > > > > lead to the inconsistency and they are still in the
>> > > database with
>> > > > > a
>> > > > > > note attached to them. The second came after a changeset
>> > > comment
>> > > > > that
>> > > > > > noted that the fixed relation didn't match and earlier
>> > > unbroken
>> > > > > > relation, in particular around the Edens Spur. I then
>> > > changed the
>> > > > > > border 

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[James Umbanhowar]

I'm going to bow out of this discussion.  The boundary relation is
broken again.  I'm not trying to be confrontational, but my attempts to
figure out what sources this user is using and to reconcile this with
what they are editing appear to be antagonizing them.  I have also lost
my patience so I will probably not be the most understanding anymore.

James
 
On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 20:23 -0400, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> You still aren't giving us very much to go on.  There's obviously
> some boundary that you consider to be inarguably correct. You need
> either to enter the data yourself or tell us where to find it and
> where the discrepancies are.
> 
> Sometimes that involves quite a lot of research. I have a ton of data
> conflicts about boundaries near me, and only rarely do I have the
> time to pursue the issues. If often involves reconciling half a dozen
> supposedly authoritative sources, as shown in 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ke9tv/diary/391486.  It's very
> rarely as simple as 'agency X is wrong and agency Y is right'. It's
> often 'agency X has lines that reflect current annexation, but part
> of their boundary is in NAD27 and part WGS84. Agency Y misses a
> recent annexation but has got the datums right. Agency Z has the
> artificial lines right, but is totally off base with the shorelines.
> Agency W appears to have digitized from a small-scale map and has a
> ton of quantization error.'
> 
> It's not a political boundary, but 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ke9tv/diary/42951 shows another
> example of the level of cadastral research that's often required to
> sort these things out.
> 
> By the way, I _do_ occasionally go out into the field and try to
> recover old survey marks to sort these things out.  For the
> inconsistent corner between Lost Clove Unit and Big Indian Wilderness
> at https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/attachments/20191205/osm-vs-nysgis.png I
> simply gave up. There are cairns at both corners. If the professional
> surveyors couldn't close the line, what hope do I have? (Nobody
> actually cares. It's wilderness anyway.)
> 
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:03 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > FYI;
> >  
> > for all of you who are not in country and do not understand about
> > usa city bounders.
> >  
> > https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/contact.html
> >  
> > and did you read what the other guy said, this is the census data
> > not true map data.
> >  
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89598349.
> >  
> > > Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:52 AM -05:00 from James Umbanhowar <
> > > jumba...@gmail.com>:
> > >  
> > > What link are you using for this? I downloaded the places
> > > boundary
> > > information from here:
> > > https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/geo/shapefiles/index.php
> > > 
> > > As I said, I'm happy to change, but I can't change without actual
> > > information.
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 18:43 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us
> > > wrote:
> > > > i am looking at the TIRGER web, show’s the real map online and
> > > > nothing you did matches.
> > > >
> > > > i live here and a block away from the edens spur just saying.
> > > >
> > > > > Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:38 AM -05:00 from James
> > > Umbanhowar <
> > > > > jumba...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > It would probably be best if these suggestions were added in
> > > the
> > > > > changeset comments, as they don't need to be discussed on the
> > > > > mailing
> > > > > list.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 11:36 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote:
> > > > > > I'm the person who made the changes and am happy to adjust
> > > the
> > > > > map to
> > > > > > better authoritative data or information. My motivation for
> > > this
> > > > > was
> > > > > > to fix a mangled boundary relation that didn't have
> > > consistent
> > > > > outer
> > > > > > and inner members. The changes came in two changesets,
> > > > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89220282 and
> > > > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89516909
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The first changeset just made the relation consistent with
> > > outer
> > > > > ways
> > > > > > and inner ways. I preserved all the ways that were in the
> > > > > relation
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > lead to the inconsistency and they are still in the
> > > database with
> > > > > a
> > > > > > note attached to them. The second came after a changeset
> > > comment
> > > > > that
> > > > > > noted that the fixed relation didn't match and earlier
> > > unbroken
> > > > > > relation, in particular around the Edens Spur. I then
> > > changed the
> > > > > > border in this area to match the 2019 Tiger data in that
> > > area
> > > > > only.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > James
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 02:37 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via
> > > Talk-us
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Changeset #89220282
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Monday, August 17, 2020 6:34 PM -05:00 from 

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[Kevin Kenny]

You still aren't giving us very much to go on.  There's obviously some
boundary that you consider to be inarguably correct. You need either to
enter the data yourself or tell us where to find it and where the
discrepancies are.

Sometimes that involves quite a lot of research. I have a ton of data
conflicts about boundaries near me, and only rarely do I have the time to
pursue the issues. If often involves reconciling half a dozen supposedly
authoritative sources, as shown in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ke9tv/diary/391486.  It's very rarely as
simple as 'agency X is wrong and agency Y is right'. It's often 'agency X
has lines that reflect current annexation, but part of their boundary is in
NAD27 and part WGS84. Agency Y misses a recent annexation but has got the
datums right. Agency Z has the artificial lines right, but is totally off
base with the shorelines. Agency W appears to have digitized from a
small-scale map and has a ton of quantization error.'

It's not a political boundary, but
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ke9tv/diary/42951 shows another example
of the level of cadastral research that's often required to sort these
things out.

By the way, I _do_ occasionally go out into the field and try to recover
old survey marks to sort these things out.  For the inconsistent corner
between Lost Clove Unit and Big Indian Wilderness at
https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/attachments/20191205/osm-vs-nysgis.png I simply
gave up. There are cairns at both corners. If the professional surveyors
couldn't close the line, what hope do I have? (Nobody actually cares. It's
wilderness anyway.)

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:03 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> FYI;
>
> for all of you who are not in country and do not understand about usa
> city bounders.
>
> https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/contact.html
>
> and did you read what the other guy said, this is the census data not true
> map data.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89598349.
>
>
> Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:52 AM -05:00 from James Umbanhowar <
> jumba...@gmail.com>:
>
> What link are you using for this? I downloaded the places boundary
> information from here:
> https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/geo/shapefiles/index.php
>
> As I said, I'm happy to change, but I can't change without actual
> information.
>
> On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 18:43 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us wrote:
> > i am looking at the TIRGER web, show’s the real map online and
> > nothing you did matches.
> >
> > i live here and a block away from the edens spur just saying.
> >
> > > Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:38 AM -05:00 from James Umbanhowar <
> > > jumba...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > It would probably be best if these suggestions were added in the
> > > changeset comments, as they don't need to be discussed on the
> > > mailing
> > > list.
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 11:36 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote:
> > > > I'm the person who made the changes and am happy to adjust the
> > > map to
> > > > better authoritative data or information. My motivation for this
> > > was
> > > > to fix a mangled boundary relation that didn't have consistent
> > > outer
> > > > and inner members. The changes came in two changesets,
> > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89220282 and
> > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89516909
> > > >
> > > > The first changeset just made the relation consistent with outer
> > > ways
> > > > and inner ways. I preserved all the ways that were in the
> > > relation
> > > > that
> > > > lead to the inconsistency and they are still in the database with
> > > a
> > > > note attached to them. The second came after a changeset comment
> > > that
> > > > noted that the fixed relation didn't match and earlier unbroken
> > > > relation, in particular around the Edens Spur. I then changed the
> > > > border in this area to match the 2019 Tiger data in that area
> > > only.
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 02:37 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us
> > > wrote:
> > > > > Changeset #89220282
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Monday, August 17, 2020 6:34 PM -05:00 from Mike Thompson <
> > > > > > miketh...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:24 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
> > > > > > talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > tiger is up to date on the web map using the current data i
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > think he picked the wrong year,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That relation was first created in 2009. According to the
> > > source
> > > > > > tag, it used 2008 Tiger data, so the original mapper probably
> > > > > > used
> > > > > > the best available TIGER data at the time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > also all he got was a white line in his first try.
> > > > > > > Way: 813726663
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That way needs to be added to the relation, and the relation
> > > must
> > > > > > close.
> > >
>
>

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[Clay Smalley]

Do you have a more authoritative source for municipal boundaries than the
US Census Bureau?

If you don't, it'll be hard for you to convince everyone here that the US
Census data is wrong.

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 5:03 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> FYI;
>
> for all of you who are not in country and do not understand about usa
> city bounders.
>
> https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/contact.html
>
> and did you read what the other guy said, this is the census data not true
> map data.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89598349.
>
>
> Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:52 AM -05:00 from James Umbanhowar <
> jumba...@gmail.com>:
>
> What link are you using for this? I downloaded the places boundary
> information from here:
> https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/geo/shapefiles/index.php
>
> As I said, I'm happy to change, but I can't change without actual
> information.
>
> On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 18:43 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us wrote:
> > i am looking at the TIRGER web, show’s the real map online and
> > nothing you did matches.
> >
> > i live here and a block away from the edens spur just saying.
> >
> > > Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:38 AM -05:00 from James Umbanhowar <
> > > jumba...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > It would probably be best if these suggestions were added in the
> > > changeset comments, as they don't need to be discussed on the
> > > mailing
> > > list.
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 11:36 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote:
> > > > I'm the person who made the changes and am happy to adjust the
> > > map to
> > > > better authoritative data or information. My motivation for this
> > > was
> > > > to fix a mangled boundary relation that didn't have consistent
> > > outer
> > > > and inner members. The changes came in two changesets,
> > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89220282 and
> > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89516909
> > > >
> > > > The first changeset just made the relation consistent with outer
> > > ways
> > > > and inner ways. I preserved all the ways that were in the
> > > relation
> > > > that
> > > > lead to the inconsistency and they are still in the database with
> > > a
> > > > note attached to them. The second came after a changeset comment
> > > that
> > > > noted that the fixed relation didn't match and earlier unbroken
> > > > relation, in particular around the Edens Spur. I then changed the
> > > > border in this area to match the 2019 Tiger data in that area
> > > only.
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 02:37 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us
> > > wrote:
> > > > > Changeset #89220282
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Monday, August 17, 2020 6:34 PM -05:00 from Mike Thompson <
> > > > > > miketh...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:24 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
> > > > > > talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > tiger is up to date on the web map using the current data i
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > think he picked the wrong year,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That relation was first created in 2009. According to the
> > > source
> > > > > > tag, it used 2008 Tiger data, so the original mapper probably
> > > > > > used
> > > > > > the best available TIGER data at the time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > also all he got was a white line in his first try.
> > > > > > > Way: 813726663
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That way needs to be added to the relation, and the relation
> > > must
> > > > > > close.
> > >
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us]

FYI;
 
for all of you who are not in country and do not understand about usa city 
bounders.
 
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/contact.html
 
and did you read what the other guy said, this is the census data not true map 
data.
 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89598349 .
 
>Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:52 AM -05:00 from James Umbanhowar < 
>jumba...@gmail.com >:
> 
>What link are you using for this? I downloaded the places boundary
>information from here:
>https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/geo/shapefiles/index.php
>
>As I said, I'm happy to change, but I can't change without actual
>information.
>
>On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 18:43 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us wrote:
>> i am looking at the TIRGER web, show’s the real map online and
>> nothing you did matches.
>>
>> i live here and a block away from the edens spur just saying.
>>
>> > Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:38 AM -05:00 from James Umbanhowar <
>> >  jumba...@gmail.com >:
>> >
>> > It would probably be best if these suggestions were added in the
>> > changeset comments, as they don't need to be discussed on the
>> > mailing
>> > list.
>> >
>> > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 11:36 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote:
>> > > I'm the person who made the changes and am happy to adjust the
>> > map to
>> > > better authoritative data or information. My motivation for this
>> > was
>> > > to fix a mangled boundary relation that didn't have consistent
>> > outer
>> > > and inner members. The changes came in two changesets,
>> > >  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89220282 and
>> > >  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89516909
>> > >
>> > > The first changeset just made the relation consistent with outer
>> > ways
>> > > and inner ways. I preserved all the ways that were in the
>> > relation
>> > > that
>> > > lead to the inconsistency and they are still in the database with
>> > a
>> > > note attached to them. The second came after a changeset comment
>> > that
>> > > noted that the fixed relation didn't match and earlier unbroken
>> > > relation, in particular around the Edens Spur. I then changed the
>> > > border in this area to match the 2019 Tiger data in that area
>> > only.
>> > >
>> > > James
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 02:37 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us
>> > wrote:
>> > > > Changeset #89220282
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > Monday, August 17, 2020 6:34 PM -05:00 from Mike Thompson <
>> > > > >  miketh...@gmail.com >:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:24 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
>> > > > >  talk-us@openstreetmap.org > wrote:
>> > > > > > tiger is up to date on the web map using the current data i
>> > > > > > just
>> > > > > > think he picked the wrong year,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > That relation was first created in 2009. According to the
>> > source
>> > > > > tag, it used 2008 Tiger data, so the original mapper probably
>> > > > > used
>> > > > > the best available TIGER data at the time.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > also all he got was a white line in his first try.
>> > > > > > Way:  813726663
>> > > > >
>> > > > > That way needs to be added to the relation, and the relation
>> > must
>> > > > > close.
>> >
 
 ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[Andy Townsend]

On 18/08/2020 16:43, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us wrote:
i am looking at the TIRGER  web, show’s the real map online and 
nothing you did matches.


Unfortunately, just saying that does not really help.  What URL are you 
actually looking at?  Under what licence is the data at that URL made 
available and is it compatible with OpenStreetMap?


Clearly there's a miscommunication somewhere about either where the 
latest TIGER data for the area is or what it represents (i.e. does it 
match the local authority's data), but without knowing more details 
about what you are looking at it is difficult for anyone to help you.


For completeness, there's a discussion and some overpass queries by date 
that show how the relation has changed on 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89220282 .


Best Regards,

Andy



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[James Umbanhowar]

What link are you using for this?  I downloaded the places boundary
information from here: 
https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/geo/shapefiles/index.php

As I said, I'm happy to change, but I can't change without actual
information.

On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 18:43 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us wrote:
> i am looking at the TIRGER  web, show’s the real map online and
> nothing you did matches. 
>  
> i live here and a block away from the edens spur just saying.
>  
> > Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:38 AM -05:00 from James Umbanhowar <
> > jumba...@gmail.com>:
> >  
> > It would probably be best if these suggestions were added in the
> > changeset comments, as they don't need to be discussed on the
> > mailing
> > list.
> > 
> > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 11:36 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote:
> > > I'm the person who made the changes and am happy to adjust the
> > map to
> > > better authoritative data or information. My motivation for this
> > was
> > > to fix a mangled boundary relation that didn't have consistent
> > outer
> > > and inner members. The changes came in two changesets,
> > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89220282 and
> > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89516909
> > >
> > > The first changeset just made the relation consistent with outer
> > ways
> > > and inner ways. I preserved all the ways that were in the
> > relation
> > > that
> > > lead to the inconsistency and they are still in the database with
> > a
> > > note attached to them. The second came after a changeset comment
> > that
> > > noted that the fixed relation didn't match and earlier unbroken
> > > relation, in particular around the Edens Spur. I then changed the
> > > border in this area to match the 2019 Tiger data in that area
> > only.
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 02:37 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us
> > wrote:
> > > > Changeset #89220282
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Monday, August 17, 2020 6:34 PM -05:00 from Mike Thompson <
> > > > > miketh...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:24 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
> > > > > talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > > > > > tiger is up to date on the web map using the current data i
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > think he picked the wrong year,
> > > > >
> > > > > That relation was first created in 2009. According to the
> > source
> > > > > tag, it used 2008 Tiger data, so the original mapper probably
> > > > > used
> > > > > the best available TIGER data at the time.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > also all he got was a white line in his first try.
> > > > > > Way: 813726663
> > > > >
> > > > > That way needs to be added to the relation, and the relation
> > must
> > > > > close.
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Talk-us mailing list
> > > > > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> > > > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Talk-us mailing list
> > > > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> > > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>  
>  
>  
>  
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us]

i am looking at the TIRGER  web, show’s the real map online and nothing you did 
matches. 
 
i live here and a block away from the edens spur just saying.
  
>Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:38 AM -05:00 from James Umbanhowar 
>:
> 
>It would probably be best if these suggestions were added in the
>changeset comments, as they don't need to be discussed on the mailing
>list.
>
>On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 11:36 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote:
>> I'm the person who made the changes and am happy to adjust the map to
>> better authoritative data or information. My motivation for this was
>> to fix a mangled boundary relation that didn't have consistent outer
>> and inner members. The changes came in two changesets,
>>  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89220282 and
>>  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89516909
>>
>> The first changeset just made the relation consistent with outer ways
>> and inner ways. I preserved all the ways that were in the relation
>> that
>> lead to the inconsistency and they are still in the database with a
>> note attached to them. The second came after a changeset comment that
>> noted that the fixed relation didn't match and earlier unbroken
>> relation, in particular around the Edens Spur. I then changed the
>> border in this area to match the 2019 Tiger data in that area only.
>>
>> James
>>
>> On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 02:37 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us wrote:
>> > Changeset #89220282
>> >
>> >
>> > > Monday, August 17, 2020 6:34 PM -05:00 from Mike Thompson <
>> > >  miketh...@gmail.com >:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:24 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
>> > >  talk-us@openstreetmap.org > wrote:
>> > > > tiger is up to date on the web map using the current data i
>> > > > just
>> > > > think he picked the wrong year,
>> > >
>> > > That relation was first created in 2009. According to the source
>> > > tag, it used 2008 Tiger data, so the original mapper probably
>> > > used
>> > > the best available TIGER data at the time.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > also all he got was a white line in his first try.
>> > > > Way:  813726663
>> > >
>> > > That way needs to be added to the relation, and the relation must
>> > > close.
>> > > ___
>> > > Talk-us mailing list
>> > >  Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> > >  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Talk-us mailing list
>> >  Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> >  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>___
>Talk-us mailing list
>Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us 
 
 
 
 ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[James Umbanhowar]

It would probably be best if these suggestions were added in the
changeset comments, as they don't need to be discussed on the mailing
list.

On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 11:36 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote:
> I'm the person who made the changes and am happy to adjust the map to
> better authoritative data or information.  My motivation for this was
> to fix a mangled boundary relation that didn't have consistent outer
> and inner members.  The changes came in two changesets,
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89220282 and 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89516909
> 
> The first changeset just made the relation consistent with outer ways
> and inner ways. I preserved all the ways that were in the relation
> that
> lead to the inconsistency and they are still in the database with a
> note attached to them. The second came after a changeset comment that
> noted that the fixed relation didn't match and earlier unbroken
> relation, in particular around the Edens Spur.  I then changed the
> border in this area to match the 2019 Tiger data in that area only.
> 
> James
> 
> On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 02:37 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us wrote:
> > Changeset #89220282
> > 
> >  
> > > Monday, August 17, 2020 6:34 PM -05:00 from Mike Thompson <
> > > miketh...@gmail.com>:
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:24 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
> > > talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > > > tiger is up to date on the web map using the current data i
> > > > just
> > > > think he picked the wrong year,
> > > 
> > > That relation was first created in 2009.  According to the source
> > > tag, it used 2008 Tiger data, so the original mapper probably
> > > used
> > > the best available TIGER data at the time.
> > >  
> > > >  
> > > > also all he got was a white line in his first try.
> > > > Way: 813726663
> > > 
> > > That way needs to be added to the relation, and the relation must
> > > close.
> > > ___
> > > Talk-us mailing list
> > > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > ___
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[James Umbanhowar]

I'm the person who made the changes and am happy to adjust the map to
better authoritative data or information.  My motivation for this was
to fix a mangled boundary relation that didn't have consistent outer
and inner members.  The changes came in two changesets,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89220282 and 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89516909

The first changeset just made the relation consistent with outer ways
and inner ways. I preserved all the ways that were in the relation that
lead to the inconsistency and they are still in the database with a
note attached to them. The second came after a changeset comment that
noted that the fixed relation didn't match and earlier unbroken
relation, in particular around the Edens Spur.  I then changed the
border in this area to match the 2019 Tiger data in that area only.

James

On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 02:37 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us wrote:
> Changeset #89220282
> 
>  
> > Monday, August 17, 2020 6:34 PM -05:00 from Mike Thompson <
> > miketh...@gmail.com>:
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:24 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
> > talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > > tiger is up to date on the web map using the current data i just
> > > think he picked the wrong year,
> > 
> > That relation was first created in 2009.  According to the source
> > tag, it used 2008 Tiger data, so the original mapper probably used
> > the best available TIGER data at the time.
> >  
> > >  
> > > also all he got was a white line in his first try.
> > > Way: 813726663
> > 
> > That way needs to be added to the relation, and the relation must
> > close.
> > ___
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>  
>  
>  
>  
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us