On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 10:18 AM Max Erickson <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've recently been working on adding administrative boundaries for > townships in Michigan (old USGS paper maps show the boundaries, I'm tracing > those). Previously I've concluded that counties in Michigan don't really > extend into the Great Lakes. The sheriff has jurisdiction on the water > (extending into the water near adjacent counties), but that's about the end > of it. For the most part Michigan counties are modeled like that, using the > shoreline as part of the boundary. > > What I am wondering about is whether townships should also use the > shoreline, splitting it into quite a few more pieces than currently exist. > The alternative would be a ways that share nodes with the shoreline. I'm > leaning in that direction but I figure it will be a pretty noisy change, so > I'm asking what people think before proceeding. > > Just recently I looked at some of the county borders in Washington State. For example, Skagit County, where I reside, extends into Puget Sound where it shares boundaries with Island County, San Juan County and Whatcom County to the north. Each of the counties like you said have jurisdiction not only of the water but also tide flats. Other counties share boundaries using the middle of rivers. Having the boundaries exactly as the state specifies can help OSM users determine which agency to contact. In fact, I reported to our county gis their parcel layer doesn't match the states description of the county boundary. (Whether or not they fix it is a whole different can of worms.) On the other hand, State Parks often extend into lakes and ocean. I've talked to the state parks department who is okay with the boundary stopping at the shoreline. Best, Clifford -- @osm_washington www.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
