Hi,
I would advise caution with this.
Government bodies will typically hold their own GIS data for park
boundaries or administrative boundaries, and the GIS data they have will
never fully align with the coastline.
However, it is not our job to be an agent for publishing government
data. We have to look further and ask for the actual situation.
If the national park boundary is mostly along the coastline but there's
a tiny patch of sand where the coastline has changed but the public data
has not - does that really mean that this little patch is not part of
the national park (and I could go there and, whatever, light a fire or
something I'm not allowed to do in the national park)?
OpenStreetMap becomes more complex the more different boundaries we
track. Having a coastline with an administrative boundary that runs
"almost" along the coast but is always a meter off, and then having in
addition to that a national park boundary that is also "almost" the same
but not quite - we should only do that if it is an important feature.
"Hey, everyone knows that along the coast of XY there's this one meter
wide stretch that is not officially part of the XY city so the city rule
about nude bathing doesn't apply there" or whatever, that might be a
reason to carefully map the difference - but if the difference is not
"on purpose" but just an imprecision that the city and national park
administration were likely to fix if they had the technical means then I
would not try to map these boundaries separate from the coastline.
Especially since they will certainly not be verifiable on the ground...
Bye
Frederik
On 28.03.23 11:33, cleary wrote:
Warin's proposal, that natural features be separated from administrative
boundaries, is strongly supported. Boundaries are often near natural features
but they rarely align precisely. Further, natural features such as coastline
and waterways can change surprisingly quickly while administrative boundaries
change much less often.
On Tue, 28 Mar 2023, at 10:58 AM, Warin wrote:
Hi
Looks like some are setting natural features to government boundaries.
A recent case along the WA south coast has been going on for some years..
The coast line looks very confused and the National Park boundaries are
being changed to the coast line in reverse of what is stated on the
change sets... (bangs head on wall).
I was altered to it by OSMInspector identifying the National Park
boundary being broken by the 'adjustment' of the 'coastline' ... that
broke the National Park boundary...
The National Park boundary looks, in some places, to be the low tide
mark and then in other places to be the hi tide mark, so it is not
consistent.
I do understand where the two (natural feature and government boundary)
coincide that it is easier to use the same way. But every now and then
someone moves it to conform to the latest imagery of the natural feature
.. thus moving the government boundary .. unintended but there we go. My
only solution si to have them as separate ways .. making it easier to
divorce the new nodes added for the new nature feature addition from the
old government boundary.
Any other ideas???
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
