Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

On 10/14/2015 05:21 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote: I've been guilty of mistakenly joining state boundaries to the Ohio River's thalweg in the past, and by now I've had to correct those boundaries on several occasions. It's unfortunate that few mappers are aware of these complexities. The full situation

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Colin Smale wrote: > > The boundary is where the government says it is... > Correct and there is a difference between "delimiting" (marking on a map or specifying coordinates) and demarcation (placing or referencing physical features on the

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

2015-10-14 14:40 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann : > The general convention in OSM, also for boundaries, is to map the actual > situation on the ground, that is which areas are actually administred > by which authority. > this often doesn't help though, because in remote areas

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:43 AM, Colin Smale wrote: > > > > A boundary couldn't be "the river" as a river has non-zero width. It might > be the "centre line", "deepest line", "fastest flowing bit" . but it > cannot be "the river" without further qualification. >

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

On 10/14/2015 04:05 AM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: On 14-10-15 09:49, Badita Florin wrote: Our task is to delete all the existing admin_level=6 boundaries and start fresh, but this seems much more things needs to happen before you do this. Don't delete the existing boundaries, update them

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

On 10/14/2015 03:49 AM, Badita Florin wrote: Our task is to delete all the existing admin_level=6 boundaries and start fresh Since this doesn't seem to have been discussed either here or on the imports list before*, how confident are you that the new data is better than the current data in

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

On 10/14/2015 03:49 AM, Badita Florin wrote: This way is a highway and at the same time is part of the relation of a boundary. This seems invalid since it merges two types of features on the same way instead of keeping a logical separation between two different things. Is this a valid way? What

[OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

It is interesting the things that you discover when trying to do the import of a whole county, in this case, Mexico Our task is to delete all the existing admin_level=6 boundaries and start fresh, but this seems much more things needs to happen before you do this. There are over 500 nodes or

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

A boundary couldn't be "the river" as a river has non-zero width. It might be the "centre line", "deepest line", "fastest flowing bit" . but it cannot be "the river" without further qualification. On 2015-10-14 11:31, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/14/2015 10:56 AM, Martin

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

On 2015-10-14 11:31, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 10/14/2015 10:56 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: (If this happens - if the boundary is defined by the river or the highway - then you still have various options of modeling this, for example having two ways share the same nodes,

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

On 2015-10-14 09:49, Badita Florin wrote: Nodes 1856092007 [1] and 1856092002 [2] , which limit the following way [3] between such nodes. This way is a highway and at the same time is part of the relation of a boundary. This seems invalid since it merges two types of features on the same way

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

How is the boundary legally defined? If it is a set of coordinates or a line on a map, then there is no intrinsic link with the line of the highway. If the highway is realigned, this will not (automatically) affect the boundary. This may have already happened in the past, so the lines are

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

Hi, On 10/14/2015 09:49 AM, Badita Florin wrote: > This way is a highway and at the same time is part of the relation of a > boundary. This seems invalid since it merges two types of features on > the same way instead of keeping a logical separation between two > different things. Is this a valid

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

2015-10-14 10:23 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm : > (If this happens - if the boundary is defined by the river or the > highway - then you still have various options of modeling this, for > example having two ways share the same nodes, > wouldn't this kind of modelling be

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

Hi, On 10/14/2015 10:56 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > (If this happens - if the boundary is defined by the river or the > highway - then you still have various options of modeling this, for > example having two ways share the same nodes, > > wouldn't this kind of modelling be

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

On 14-10-15 09:49, Badita Florin wrote: > Our task is to delete all the existing admin_level=6 boundaries and start > fresh, but this seems much more things needs to happen before you do this. Don't delete the existing boundaries, update them to match the new reality using the ReplaceGeometry

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

2015-10-14 9:49 GMT+02:00 Badita Florin : > This way is a highway and at the same time is part of the relation of a > boundary. This seems invalid since it merges two types of features on the > same way instead of keeping a logical separation between two different >

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

Mike Thompson gmail.com> writes: > > Sometimes, such as in the case of the boundary between the US states of Ohio and Kentucky, it is the low water mark on one bank[1] (in this case the court held that it was the low water mark of the north bank of the Ohio River in 1792, not the present low

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

On Wednesday 14 October 2015, Colin Smale wrote: > Boundaries are often downloadable from authoritative sources. The > downloadable data is however not always the legal definition of the > boundary, but derived from that definition [...] A large fraction of 'authorative' sources of boundary data

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

On 10/14/2015 1:23 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: You'd have to research how the boundary is defined. If there is some sort of legal definition that goes "the boundary has the following geometry: from lat/lon A to lat/lon B to lat/lon C...", independent of the river or highway, then it makes sense to

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

On 2015-10-14 13:04, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Wednesday 14 October 2015, Colin Smale wrote: > >> Boundaries are often downloadable from authoritative sources. The >> downloadable data is however not always the legal definition of the >> boundary, but derived from that definition [...]

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

Boundaries are often downloadable from authoritative sources. The downloadable data is however not always the legal definition of the boundary, but derived from that definition - either by surveying if the definition is descriptive, or by generalisation as the full level of detail is too much

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

sent from a phone > Am 14.10.2015 um 12:27 schrieb Colin Smale : > > The boundary is where the government says it is... yes, but the governments of adjoining states having different ideas about this is also not rare. Cheers Martin

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

It's not that simple. I work in an government agency and the issue of boundaries rises often, both for public and private issues. Iceland is an advanced nation regarding technology adaption. However boundaries are not all clearly defined as GIS vectors and many of them are disputed. There

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

Well, although it is definitely not unknown, I think it probably is fair to call it rare in the grand scheme of things... The vast majority of administrative boundaries in the world are not disputed, and the ones that are, are more likely to be the national borders (admin_level=2) than internal

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

On Wednesday 14 October 2015, Colin Smale wrote: > > A large fraction of 'authorative' sources of boundary data have > > very little to do with the legal/contractual definition of the > > boundary. I would probably go as far as saying the most inaccurate > > boundaries in OSM come from

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

On Wednesday 14 October 2015, Maarten Deen wrote: > > > > Academic detail. "Is" the boundary the river, or is the boundary a > > thing > > its own right, the geometry of which is described by the river? I > > think you can argue either way. > > And the legal part can be different too. It can be