[Talk-us] Mapping Party in NYC Next Sunday
Hey all, Just in case anyone here is in/around NYC and isn't aware of the mapping party next week: http://www.meetup.com/osm-nyc/events/118375942/ Whether you're a new mapper or an experienced mapper, you should join us! - Serge ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Admin boundary level quirk in NYC
So I propose a different schema: New York Boroughs: 9 Cities (incl. NYC): 8 Counties: 6 and have separate relations for the counties and boroughs (e.g. Brooklyn and Kings County), sharing the same ways. Your proposal sounds entirely reasonable to me. The notion that cities are contained within a county is baked into the hierarchical organization, and something has to give when that isn't true. Letting the hierarchy not line up seems better than choosing different levels. In the old way, there's the awkward question about how L5 should be rendered, and why it should look different than L8, and that's all unnnecessary mess. Your proposal defers the interesting choice to the renderer, which is whether one cares about counties or boroughs, but such deferring is in my view a feature. pgpbpQOHf4tav.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Admin boundary level quirk in NYC
Clay, Thank you for bringing this up. I have a number of thoughts on this issue, so it may take me a bit to get to the proposal in your email. First, I think that this is a good illustration of why some of us would like all administrative data taken out of OSM and moved into another dataset. The maintenance of it is quite complex and even in areas where it seems objective, is not. Secondly, I think for any major area change, such as this, I'd like to suggest you touch base with the OSM US Import Committee, even though this is not an import, it will have similar effects as one (effecting a large, very populated area in many ways). Thirdly. I'd like to suggest you meet with other OSMers in NYC to discuss. Since we're having a mapping party next weekend, this seems like a good time to introduce yourself and discuss this proposal. Fourthly, I'm going to assume that your proposal is *just* to change NYC and the 5 boroughs, right? If not, then this needs discussion on a larger scale. Fifth, I have some concerns about granularity. By doing this, you've effectively made admin level 10 the last usable admin level that we currently measure. In your NYC example, 9 becomes the borough, but that means 10 has to be neighborhoods on a very gross level. For example, do you differentiate between Greenwich Village''s West and East Village? I certainly do, and I think most New Yorkers would, but they're both part of the Village itself. My other big question is What does this solve?, in other words, what problem are you seeing that needs correction by this action? - Serge ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Admin boundary level quirk in NYC
You might want to take a look at how Virginia is mapped. Cities in Virginia are not considered to be subordinate to counties, even if surrounded on all sides by a county. Towns, on the other hand, are subordinate to, and part of, counties. Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: So I propose a different schema: New York Boroughs: 9 Cities (incl. NYC): 8 Counties: 6 and have separate relations for the counties and boroughs (e.g. Brooklyn and Kings County), sharing the same ways. Your proposal sounds entirely reasonable to me. The notion that cities are contained within a county is baked into the hierarchical organization, and something has to give when that isn't true. Letting the hierarchy not line up seems better than choosing different levels. In the old way, there's the awkward question about how L5 should be rendered, and why it should look different than L8, and that's all unnnecessary mess. Your proposal defers the interesting choice to the renderer, which is whether one cares about counties or boroughs, but such deferring is in my view a feature. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] MassGIS L3 Parcel Layer updated
Hi, The Massachusetts L3 parcel imaging layer has been updated. 10 new towns were added by MassGIS on 4/25. 321 of 351 towns are now covered. If you use JOSM for map editing in MA and have not yet tried the parcel layer, you just need to update the image sources, activate it, and restart. Thanks Jason. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
