date:20140112

Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...

2014-01-12 Thread Harald Kliems

Some updates on this issue:

I contacted Martijn a while ago with the suggestion of running this as a
Maproulette. He liked the idea but I haven't heard back in a while. He also
asked me how many cases we're talking about and based on the Overpass query
mentioned upthread I came to the conclusion that the number is actually not
that high (maybe 400 cases in all of Canada at the most). Therefore I've
started fixing the issue manually and already cleaned up all of Quebec. It
took me several hours, but that's partly because you always discover other
issues to take care of as you go along (e.g. missing motorway_junction,
name vs. exit_to on those junctions etc.).

I'll continue working on this in Ontario now and I encourage others to go
ahead in the other provinces, too. Just run
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1CIon the appropriate bounding box and then
go through each of the spots that
come up. If there is hi-res Bing imagery available the fix will be obvious;
and if not common sense should still tell you if a segment is oneway=yes or
oneway=no. I have added a oneway tag to every motorway_link segment, both
to avoid any misunderstanding with the default and to allow me to track the
progress on the Overpass map.

Cheers,
 Harald.


On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Harald Kliems kli...@gmail.com wrote:

 So before contacting Martijn I want to be sure that we can properly
 identify the potentially problematic ways. What we are looking for are ways
 that match the following query:

 (highway=motorway_link) AND (NOT oneway=*) AND (lanes!=1)

 Or in natural language: ways that are motorway links but don't have the
 oneway tag nor are tagged as having one lane. If you want to test this
 query, go to this link http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1CI and adjust the
 bounding box coordinates for the desired area.

 Comments?

  Harald.


 On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:

 The example I provided yesterday was not fixed.  Most the exits having a
 similar look along the trans-Canada Highway in Quebec are the same. I have
 also found examples in Alberta and In BC.



 Daniel



 *From:* Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* November-26-13 10:04
 *To:* Daniel Begin
 *Cc:* Connors, Bernie (SNB); Talk-CA OpenStreetMap

 *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...



 I can write an email to Martijn with a proposal. Does anyone have a link
 to an exit that has not been fixed yet to use as an example?



  Harald.



 On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:

 It seems to me it is the only safe solution. I go for maproulette.org

 Daniel



 *From:* Connors, Bernie (SNB) [mailto:bernie.conn...@snb.ca]
 *Sent:* November-26-13 08:19
 *To:* 'Harald Kliems'; Daniel Begin
 *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
 *Subject:* RE: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...



 +1 for the Maproulette.org solution.



 Bernie.

 --

 Bernie Connors, P.Eng

 Tel: 506-444-2077

 bernie.conn...@snb.ca

 *SNB – We make it happen…*

 [image: SAG_Logo_2013]



 *From:* Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com kli...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Monday, 2013-11-25 5:05 PM
 *To:* Daniel Begin
 *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
 *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...







 On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:

 Hooo, I see, and I also see there was not a large consensus on that point
 (Discussion) since all other ways are having a different behavior…



 About all motorway_link in Canada are having the same problem!

 I don't know, I rarely encounter this issue in practice. Adding oneway=no
 to all motorway_link seems rather dangerous and counterproductive. The best
 solution would probably be to create a query that will find all imported
 motorway_link that have not been touched since the import and then check
 them. Depending on how big the task is we could ask Martijn to set it up as
 a Maproulette (http://maproulette.org/). Or we set up a wiki page to
 coordinate people going through all the motorways/exits and make sure
 everything is okay by hand. There are only 33 Autoroutes in Quebec after
 all :-)



  Harald.







 --
 Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
 Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565




 --
 Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
 Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
image001.jpg___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...

2014-01-12 Thread Pierre Béland

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/22d

your example rewritten with a variable bbox + print mode=meta to be able to 
import into JOSM.

 
Pierre 




 De : Harald Kliems kli...@gmail.com
À : Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com 
Cc : Talk-CA OpenStreetMap talk-ca@openstreetmap.org; Connors, Bernie (SNB) 
bernie.conn...@snb.ca 
Envoyé le : Dimanche 12 janvier 2014 18h03
Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...
 


Some updates on this issue:

I contacted Martijn a while ago with the suggestion of running this as a 
Maproulette. He liked the idea but I haven't heard back in a while. He also 
asked me how many cases we're talking about and based on the Overpass query 
mentioned upthread I came to the conclusion that the number is actually not 
that high (maybe 400 cases in all of Canada at the most). Therefore I've 
started fixing the issue manually and already cleaned up all of Quebec. It took 
me several hours, but that's partly because you always discover other issues to 
take care of as you go along (e.g. missing motorway_junction, name vs. exit_to 
on those junctions etc.). 

I'll continue working on this in Ontario now and I encourage others to go ahead 
in the other provinces, too. Just run http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1CI on the 
appropriate bounding box and then go through each of the spots that come up. If 
there is hi-res Bing imagery available the fix will be obvious; and if not 
common sense should still tell you if a segment is oneway=yes or oneway=no. I 
have added a oneway tag to every motorway_link segment, both to avoid any 
misunderstanding with the default and to allow me to track the progress on the 
Overpass map.

Cheers,
 Harald.



On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Harald Kliems kli...@gmail.com wrote:

So before contacting Martijn I want to be sure that we can properly identify 
the potentially problematic ways. What we are looking for are ways that match 
the following query:


(highway=motorway_link) AND (NOT oneway=*) AND (lanes!=1) 


Or in natural language: ways that are motorway links but don't have the oneway 
tag nor are tagged as having one lane. If you want to test this query, go to 
this link http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1CI and adjust the bounding box 
coordinates for the desired area.


Comments?


 Harald.



On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:

The example I provided yesterday was not fixed.  Most the exits having a 
similar look along the trans-Canada Highway in Quebec are the same. I have 
also found examples in Alberta and In BC.
 
Daniel
 
From:Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com] 
Sent: November-26-13 10:04
To: Daniel Begin
Cc: Connors, Bernie (SNB); Talk-CA OpenStreetMap

Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...
 
I can write an email to Martijn with a proposal. Does anyone have a link to 
an exit that has not been fixed yet to use as an example?
 
 Harald.
 
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:
It seems to me it is the only safe solution. I go for maproulette.org
Daniel
 
From:Connors, Bernie (SNB) [mailto:bernie.conn...@snb.ca] 
Sent: November-26-13 08:19
To: 'Harald Kliems'; Daniel Begin
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...
 
+1 for the Maproulette.org solution.
 
Bernie.
--
Bernie Connors, P.Eng
Tel: 506-444-2077 
bernie.conn...@snb.ca
SNB – We make it happen…
 
From:Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, 2013-11-25 5:05 PM
To: Daniel Begin
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...
 
 
 
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hooo, I see, and I also see there was not a large consensus on that point 
(Discussion) since all other ways are having a different behavior…
 
About all motorway_link in Canada are having the same problem!
I don't know, I rarely encounter this issue in practice. Adding oneway=no to 
all motorway_link seems rather dangerous and counterproductive. The best 
solution would probably be to create a query that will find all imported 
motorway_link that have not been touched since the import and then check 
them. Depending on how big the task is we could ask Martijn to set it up as a 
Maproulette (http://maproulette.org/). Or we set up a wiki page to coordinate 
people going through all the motorways/exits and make sure everything is okay 
by hand. There are only 33 Autoroutes in Quebec after all :-)
 
 Harald.
 



 
-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 



-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 


-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 

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

Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...

2014-01-12 Thread Daniel Begin

Many thanks Harald J

Daniel

From: Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com] 
Sent: January-12-14 18:04
To: Daniel Begin
Cc: Connors, Bernie (SNB); Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...

Some updates on this issue:

I contacted Martijn a while ago with the suggestion of running this as a
Maproulette. He liked the idea but I haven't heard back in a while. He also
asked me how many cases we're talking about and based on the Overpass query
mentioned upthread I came to the conclusion that the number is actually not
that high (maybe 400 cases in all of Canada at the most). Therefore I've
started fixing the issue manually and already cleaned up all of Quebec. It
took me several hours, but that's partly because you always discover other
issues to take care of as you go along (e.g. missing motorway_junction, name
vs. exit_to on those junctions etc.). 

I'll continue working on this in Ontario now and I encourage others to go
ahead in the other provinces, too. Just run http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1CI
on the appropriate bounding box and then go through each of the spots that
come up. If there is hi-res Bing imagery available the fix will be obvious;
and if not common sense should still tell you if a segment is oneway=yes or
oneway=no. I have added a oneway tag to every motorway_link segment, both to
avoid any misunderstanding with the default and to allow me to track the
progress on the Overpass map.

Cheers,

 Harald.

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Harald Kliems kli...@gmail.com wrote:

So before contacting Martijn I want to be sure that we can properly identify
the potentially problematic ways. What we are looking for are ways that
match the following query:

(highway=motorway_link) AND (NOT oneway=*) AND (lanes!=1) 

Or in natural language: ways that are motorway links but don't have the
oneway tag nor are tagged as having one lane. If you want to test this
query, go to this link http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1CI and adjust the
bounding box coordinates for the desired area.

Comments?

 Harald.

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:

The example I provided yesterday was not fixed.  Most the exits having a
similar look along the trans-Canada Highway in Quebec are the same. I have
also found examples in Alberta and In BC.

Daniel

From: Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com] 
Sent: November-26-13 10:04
To: Daniel Begin
Cc: Connors, Bernie (SNB); Talk-CA OpenStreetMap

Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...

I can write an email to Martijn with a proposal. Does anyone have a link to
an exit that has not been fixed yet to use as an example?

 Harald.

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:

It seems to me it is the only safe solution. I go for maproulette.org

Daniel

From: Connors, Bernie (SNB) [mailto:bernie.conn...@snb.ca] 
Sent: November-26-13 08:19
To: 'Harald Kliems'; Daniel Begin
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...

+1 for the Maproulette.org solution.

Bernie.

--

Bernie Connors, P.Eng

Tel: 506-444-2077 

bernie.conn...@snb.ca

SNB - We make it happen.

SAG_Logo_2013

From: Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, 2013-11-25 5:05 PM
To: Daniel Begin
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:

Hooo, I see, and I also see there was not a large consensus on that point
(Discussion) since all other ways are having a different behavior.

About all motorway_link in Canada are having the same problem!

I don't know, I rarely encounter this issue in practice. Adding oneway=no to
all motorway_link seems rather dangerous and counterproductive. The best
solution would probably be to create a query that will find all imported
motorway_link that have not been touched since the import and then check
them. Depending on how big the task is we could ask Martijn to set it up as
a Maproulette (http://maproulette.org/). Or we set up a wiki page to
coordinate people going through all the motorways/exits and make sure
everything is okay by hand. There are only 33 Autoroutes in Quebec after all
:-)

 Harald.

-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 

-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 

-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 

image001.jpg___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...

2014-01-12 Thread berniejconnors

It's been a while but I think I cleaned up this problem in New Brunswick.Another problem in New Brunswick are ways that share a node at a highway overpass. If there is a grade separation then the ways do not intersect and they should not share a node. I think this is related to the Canvec imports in NB. I have fixed some of these but there are still more and I expect it is a problem in other regions too.Bernie.Sent from Samsung Mobile Original message From: Harald Kliems  Date:01/12/2014  7:03 PM  (GMT-04:00) To: Daniel Begin  Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap ,"Connors, Bernie (SNB)"  Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ... Some updates on this issue:I contacted Martijn a while ago with the suggestion of running this as a Maproulette. He liked the idea but I haven't heard back in a while. He also asked me how many cases we're talking about and based on the Overpass query mentioned upthread I came to the conclusion that the number is actually not that high (maybe 400 cases in all of Canada at the most). Therefore I've started fixing the issue manually and already cleaned up all of Quebec. It took me several hours, but that's partly because you always discover other issues to take care of as you go along (e.g. missing motorway_junction, name vs. exit_to on those junctions etc.).
I'll continue working on this in Ontario now and I encourage others to go ahead in the other provinces, too. Just run http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1CI on the appropriate bounding box and then go through each of the spots that come up. If there is hi-res Bing imagery available the fix will be obvious; and if not common sense should still tell you if a segment is _oneway_=yes or _oneway_=no. I have added a oneway tag to every motorway_link segment, both to avoid any misunderstanding with the default and to allow me to track the progress on the Overpass map.
Cheers,Harald.On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Harald Kliems kli...@gmail.com wrote:
So before contacting Martijn I want to be sure that we can properly identify the potentially problematic ways. What we are looking for are ways that match the following query:
(highway="motorway_link") AND (NOT _oneway_=*) AND (lanes!="1")
Or in natural language: ways that are motorway links but don't have the oneway tag nor are tagged as having one lane. If you want to test this query, go to this linkhttp://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1CI and adjust the bounding box coordinates for the desired area.

Comments?Harald.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:
The example I provided yesterday was not fixed. Most the exits having a similar look along the trans-Canada Highway in Quebec are the same. I have also found examples in Alberta and In BC.

Daniel

From: Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com] 

Sent: November-26-13 10:04To: Daniel BeginCc: Connors, Bernie (SNB); Talk-CA OpenStreetMapSubject: Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...

I can write an email to Martijn with a proposal. Does anyone have a link to an exit that has not been fixed yet to use as an example?

Harald.On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:

It seems to me it is the only safe solution. I go for maproulette.org

Daniel

From: Connors, Bernie (SNB) [mailto:bernie.conn...@snb.ca] 

Sent: November-26-13 08:19To: 'Harald Kliems'; Daniel BeginCc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMapSubject: RE: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...

+1 for the Maproulette.org solution.

Bernie.

--Bernie Connors, P.Eng

Tel: 506-444-2077 

bernie.conn...@snb.ca

SNB – We make it happen…

From: Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, 2013-11-25 5:05 PMTo: Daniel BeginCc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMapSubject: Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:

Hooo, I see, and I also see there was not a large consensus on that point (Discussion) since all other ways are having a different behavior…

About all motorway_link in Canada are having the same problem!

I don't know, I rarely encounter this issue in practice. Adding _oneway_=no to all motorway_link seems rather dangerous and counterproductive. The best solution would probably be to create a query that will find all imported motorway_link that have not been touched since the import and then check them. Depending on how big the task is we could ask Martijn to set it up as a Maproulette (http://maproulette.org/). Or we set up a wiki page to coordinate people going through all the motorways/exits and make sure everything is okay by hand. There are only 33 Autoroutes in Quebec after all :-)

Harald.

-- Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 

-- Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565

-- Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565

[Talk-ca] Maritime Boundary

2014-01-12 Thread Adam Martin

Hello!

I have a question regarding the maritime boundary of Canada, specifically
Newfoundland and Labrador. National maritime boundaries generally use the
12 nautical mile limit, unless otherwise specified. I see the boundary for
the province (http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=7/48.283/-53.196) which is
auto-generated by a bot. That seems fine, but there is another maritime
boundary for the Province. However, this one does not appear to be correct.
Take a look at this example -
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/47.7920/-52.7985. As you can see, the
dashed line represents the boundary - in ID, it is noted as the maritime
boundary. But that does not make sense - the line crosses the landmass, for
one thing. It is also very poorly shaped.

Is this supposed to be the actual maritime boundary? I don't think it is -
the parts of the line appears to be for the Provincial boundary. If it is
the Provincial boundary, shouldn't it follow the coastal boundary?

If I am mistaken, let me know.

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Maritime Boundary

2014-01-12 Thread Richard Weait

On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Adam Martin s.adam.mar...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hello!

 Is this supposed to be the actual maritime boundary? I don't think it is -
 the parts of the line appears to be for the Provincial boundary. If it is
 the Provincial boundary, shouldn't it follow the coastal boundary?

 If I am mistaken, let me know.

I don't think that you are mistaken, but I don't think you have all of
the facts either.

The 12NM line does look to be one that was created automatically.  It
certainly wasn't surveyed by a local mapper.  :-)  Same for the inland
maritime boundary.  I looked at that one in more detail.  Here's
what I see going on.

The boundary way is this one

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30114485

It is also part of two relations.  One relation is a civil boundary,
the other is an administrative (provincial)

Boundary ways can not be understood fully, or edited wisely, without
understanding relations.  I wouldn't edit any complex form, such as a
boundary relation, with an editor other than JOSM.  And not with any
editor, on a mobile device.

Today, the way appears badly drawn, and incomplete in tagging.  I'll
take a few guesses at why.

The history of that way shows 28 revisions.  The first one was the
creation of the way, as an import from geobase in 2009. It was tagged
as an administrative boundary (not a maritime boundary).  Likely, this
was the best data available to us at the time.  With the currently
available imagery, we can see that the imported boundary does not
align with imagery, nor does it reflect some of the details in the
current imagery.

Revisions 2 through 25 have been redacted, due to edits by users who
did not agree to the license change.  The boundary may have had some
improvements and corrections through those edits.  Improved or
otherwise, those edits are gone.

Revision 26 shows that the redaction bot cleaned out the data that we
were no longer entitled to keep.  That left the way without tags.

R27 in 2012 appears not to have directly affected the way. It may have
edited an intersecting way?  It was a large changeset.

R28 in 2013 added the maritime tag you report. The maritime tag alone,
is an unusual form.  I don't think that it would be considered
complete, unless combined with the tags of the parent relations.

When compared with the 'bot-drawn 12nm maritime boundary, this way
appears to be incorrect.  It just doesn't seem to be far enough
offshore to be a maritime boundary.

When compared to http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/115038287 (from
2011, and a canvec import) the '485 way appears low resolution and
poorly aligned.

So there are are multiple imported boundaries here.  Each were the
probably best available at the time.  Neither are perfect, and now the
appear to somewhat duplicate each other, given the parent relations of
'485.

Hope that helps a bit.

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Maritime Boundary

2014-01-12 Thread David E. Nelson

It seems to me that the provincial boundary should be displaced from the coast 
of the Island of Newfoundland by 3 NM.  Is there a tool one can use to do that?

 
- David E. Nelson



On Sunday, January 12, 2014 8:00:21 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
 
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Adam Martin s.adam.mar...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hello!

 Is this supposed to be the actual maritime boundary? I don't think it is -
 the parts of the line appears to be for the Provincial boundary. If it is
 the Provincial boundary, shouldn't it follow the coastal boundary?

 If I am mistaken, let me know.

I don't think that you are mistaken, but I don't think you have all of
the facts either.

The 12NM line does look to be one that was created automatically.  It
certainly wasn't surveyed by a local mapper.  :-)  Same for the inland
maritime boundary.  I looked at that one in more detail.  Here's
what I see going on.

The boundary way is this one

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30114485

It is also part of two relations.  One relation is a civil boundary,
the other is an administrative (provincial)

Boundary ways can not be understood fully, or edited wisely, without
understanding relations.  I wouldn't edit any complex form, such as a
boundary relation, with an editor other than JOSM.  And not with any
editor, on a mobile device.

Today, the way appears badly drawn, and incomplete in tagging.  I'll
take a few guesses at why.

The history of that way shows 28 revisions.  The first one was the
creation of the way, as an import from geobase in 2009. It was tagged
as an administrative boundary (not a maritime boundary).  Likely, this
was the best data available to us at the time.  With the currently
available imagery, we can see that the imported boundary does not
align with imagery, nor does it reflect some of the details in the
current imagery.

Revisions 2 through 25 have been redacted, due to edits by users who
did not agree to the license change.  The boundary may have had some
improvements and corrections through those edits.  Improved or
otherwise, those edits are gone.

Revision 26 shows that the redaction bot cleaned out the data that we
were no longer entitled to keep.  That left the way without tags.

R27 in 2012 appears not to have directly affected the way. It may have
edited an intersecting way?  It was a large changeset.

R28 in 2013 added the maritime tag you report. The maritime tag alone,
is an unusual form.  I don't think that it would be considered
complete, unless combined with the tags of the parent relations.

When compared with the 'bot-drawn 12nm maritime boundary, this way
appears to be incorrect.  It just doesn't seem to be far enough
offshore to be a maritime boundary.

When compared to http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/115038287 (from
2011, and a canvec import) the '485 way appears low resolution and
poorly aligned.

So there are are multiple imported boundaries here.  Each were the
probably best available at the time.  Neither are perfect, and now the
appear to somewhat duplicate each other, given the parent relations of
'485.

Hope that helps a bit.


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

Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...

Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...

Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...

Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...

[Talk-ca] Maritime Boundary

Re: [Talk-ca] Maritime Boundary

Re: [Talk-ca] Maritime Boundary

7 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information