Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org writes:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 3:00 AM, Minh Nguyen m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
wrote:
If you're lucky, you can find an Ohio city limit's legal definition in
county commissioners' minutes when an annexation is proposed. The most
authoritative data
Serge Wroclawski writes:
It's entirely possible that the names the locals use for that river
differ from the government dataset, in which case, OSM would prefer
you use the local name as the primary name, and not the official one.
This is the USGS standard for naming in their topo maps.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 3:00 AM, Minh Nguyen m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
wrote:
On 2015-03-24 13:57, Martijn van Exel wrote:
I have long been on the fence about boundaries in OSM, and while I don't
feel as strongly about it any longer, it still feels wrong to make this
sweeping exception to
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:00 AM, Minh Nguyen m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
wrote:
I've taken quite a few imported municipal boundaries, lined them up with
road easements or hedges between farms _when that is obviously the intent_,
and deleted extra nodes. These borders become far more accurate
On 03/23/2015 12:29 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
The nice thing about mapping a neighborhood name as a point feature is:
a) It helps people locate the neighborhood
b) it completely sidesteps the question of the exact, possibly fuzzy,
boundaries.
For 10% of the hassle you map 90% of the benefit.
I would politely disagree that TIGER is an authoritative source for two reasons:
1) The extensive TIGER cleanup that is still being done years after the last
import, and
2) While helpful at compiling data, the federal government is not authoritative
for any boundaries within a state (and once
On 3/24/15 6:01 PM, Jack Burke wrote:
I would politely disagree that TIGER is an authoritative source for two
reasons:
1) The extensive TIGER cleanup that is still being done years after the last
import, and
well, if that data were removed and sourced externally, the problems
with TIGER
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Kevin Kenny kken...@nycap.rr.com wrote:
Or follow the obvious rule: Let the local mappers decide.
Use point features for indeterminate things.
In areas where neighborhoods have borders that are identifiable on the
ground, map the borders. Some neighborhoods
I have long been on the fence about boundaries in OSM, and while I don't
feel as strongly about it any longer, it still feels wrong to make this
sweeping exception to one of the fundamental conventions of OSM mapping:
verifiability. For many types of land use, anyone would be able to verify
Greg,
3. It is my belief and experience that the ground observable rule is
something that only applies to Europe or older metropolitan areas.
I think there's a misunderstanding here.
Of course even in European metropolitan areas there will *not* be a sign
bearing the name of every stream that
Greg Morgan wrote:
2. To quote Richard Fairhurst, Seriously, OSM in the [England] s still
way beyond broken. You can open it at any random location and the map
is just __fictional__. Here are two random examples bing;OS StreetView
[2] shape is approximate. Needs proper survey as mostly
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Greg Morgan dr.kludge...@gmail.com wrote:
1. Every time this boundary debate or accuracy debate comes up, I image that
I am supposed to have $20,000 of GPS equipment[1]; post process the data so
that it is accurate; before I dare put the data in OSM.
I agree
I agree 100% with Bryce.
- Serge
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
The nice thing about mapping a neighborhood name as a point feature is:
a) It helps people locate the neighborhood
b) it completely sidesteps the question of the exact, possibly
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Minh Nguyen m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
wrote:
tl;dr: I'm against a blanket rule when it comes to administrative
boundaries. They're really nuanced, and so should we.
On 2015-03-22 04:32, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
Imagine if Bob and Alice conflict on where a
The nice thing about mapping a neighborhood name as a point feature is:
a) It helps people locate the neighborhood
b) it completely sidesteps the question of the exact, possibly fuzzy,
boundaries.
For 10% of the hassle you map 90% of the benefit.
___
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com
wrote:
The nice thing about mapping a neighborhood name as a point feature is:
a) It helps people locate the neighborhood
b) it completely sidesteps the question of the exact, possibly fuzzy,
boundaries.
For 10% of the
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us
wrote:
Except when it reports you are in a different neighborhood than you
actually are.
A point feature does not imply a radius.
A governmental defined neighborhood boundary is totally mappable at the
right admin level,
tl;dr: I'm against a blanket rule when it comes to administrative
boundaries. They're really nuanced, and so should we.
On 2015-03-22 04:32, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
Imagine if Bob and Alice conflict on where a neighborhood boundary is
inside OSM. The issue escalates to an edit war and the DWG
18 matches
Mail list logo
