On Wednesday 14 October 2015, Colin Smale wrote: > > A large fraction of 'authorative' sources of boundary data have > > very little to do with the legal/contractual definition of the > > boundary. I would probably go as far as saying the most inaccurate > > boundaries in OSM come from authorative sources. > > I would be interested in some supporting evidence for this...
OK - i need to constrict that - the most inaccurate boundaries in OSM are maritime boundaries which do not generally come from authorative sources. The most inaccurate land boundaries are probably from non-authorative sources like CIA database and LSIB. Without knowing the actual demarcation of a boundary this is generally difficult to assess and there are no boundaries imported from authorative sources around here but things like http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/191851483 are likely inaccurate since nodes are placed away from the feature the boundary seems to follow and are located at positions that would not be well suited for demarcation. > >> The boundary is where the government says it is... > > > > Not in OSM - see the 'on the ground rule'. For OSM the boundary is > > what locals treat as the boundary. > > That's a different boundary then. The area between the two might be > "disputed", [...] No, disputed is when people on one side of the boundary have a different idea of where the boundary is than those on the other side. The general convention in OSM, also for boundaries, is to map the actual situation on the ground, that is which areas are actually administred by which authority. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
