I started working my way across and the cleanup is progressing. I'm up to monument 31 so far. Once I get out of populated areas it should go quicker.
The monuments are physically present on the ground, so their location could be improved by more accurate surveys. However, I doubt if any consumer GPS would be more accurate. The points agree with multiple sources of accurate imagery within the resolution of the imagery. I settled on ibc:ref for the turning points which don't have a survey_point on the ground. Those refs help me keep track of where I am. Starting in the water and going east, the border is now Delta-Whatcom County Surrey-Whatcom County White Rock-Whatcom County Surrey-Whatcom County Surrey-Blaine Langley-Blaine Langley-Whatcom County Abbotsford-Whatcom County Abbotsford-Sumas > -----Original Message----- > From: Toby Murray [mailto:toby.mur...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 7:51 AM > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] City boundaries on the Canada/US border > > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Alexander Roalter > <alexan...@roalter.it> wrote: > > Am 30.03.2012 11:17, schrieb Paul Norman: > > > >> There are a significant number of cities in BC and Washington which > >> have borders that in practice[1] coincide with the Canada/US border. > >> Currently in OSM these are represented with many nearly-overlapping > >> ways. > >> > >> The Canada/US border here consists of the BC-WA border, BC-ID border, > >> BC-MT border, AB-MT border, SK-MT border, SK-ND border, etc. There > >> are separate ways for the cities on the Canada side and cities on the > >> US side. > >> > > ... > > > >> > >> This would reduce the number of ways present when you download a > >> section of the border and have many advantages. The one big > >> disadvantage is that it would boost the number of ways in the Canada > >> and US relations. This increases the chance of conflicts and also > >> increases the number of places it could be broken. > > > > > > I merged the us/canadian border with the north dakota, minnesota and > montana > > state borders and also county borders a while ago, and I agree that > there > > should only be one way for one part of the border, this line being > shared in > > all affected boundary relations. > > I don't really think this will increase conflicts, as if you delete > one way > > of a border, all affected relations will be notified (at least in JOSM > it's > > impossible to download a way without downloading all relations this > way is > > connected. > > > > I did include city boundaries where available, but this was the case > only on > > one city (Emerson, MB). In Europe, nearly all borders are made up of > > individual municipality border stretches (I once loaded italy's > > circumference, made up of >2500 ways). > > The problem with conflicts is if someone is splitting ways that are > members of the US border relation down in Arizona while you are doing > the same up in Washington. But in general I don't think this will be a > huge problem. Much of the US border is either in water or sparsely > populated areas where frequent edits are unlikely. > > I've done some splitting of ways for counties along both the north and > south border so I think this would be fine too. Overlapping ways are a > pain to deal with. Then again relations can be a pain too :) But at > least they are cleaner. > > Toby > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us