i will fix anything that i missed but the lines are truth. and it is not a polygon, and i broke nothing i fixed what the other guy broke and did it all by hand. >Tuesday, August 18, 2020 7:36 PM -05:00 from James Umbanhowar ><jumba...@gmail.com>: > >I'm going to bow out of this discussion. The boundary relation is >broken again. I'm not trying to be confrontational, but my attempts to >figure out what sources this user is using and to reconcile this with >what they are editing appear to be antagonizing them. I have also lost >my patience so I will probably not be the most understanding anymore. > >James > >On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 20:23 -0400, Kevin Kenny wrote: >> You still aren't giving us very much to go on. There's obviously >> some boundary that you consider to be inarguably correct. You need >> either to enter the data yourself or tell us where to find it and >> where the discrepancies are. >> >> Sometimes that involves quite a lot of research. I have a ton of data >> conflicts about boundaries near me, and only rarely do I have the >> time to pursue the issues. If often involves reconciling half a dozen >> supposedly authoritative sources, as shown in >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ke9tv/diary/391486 . It's very >> rarely as simple as 'agency X is wrong and agency Y is right'. It's >> often 'agency X has lines that reflect current annexation, but part >> of their boundary is in NAD27 and part WGS84. Agency Y misses a >> recent annexation but has got the datums right. Agency Z has the >> artificial lines right, but is totally off base with the shorelines. >> Agency W appears to have digitized from a small-scale map and has a >> ton of quantization error.' >> >> It's not a political boundary, but >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ke9tv/diary/42951 shows another >> example of the level of cadastral research that's often required to >> sort these things out. >> >> By the way, I _do_ occasionally go out into the field and try to >> recover old survey marks to sort these things out. For the >> inconsistent corner between Lost Clove Unit and Big Indian Wilderness >> at https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/attachments/20191205/osm-vs-nysgis.png I >> simply gave up. There are cairns at both corners. If the professional >> surveyors couldn't close the line, what hope do I have? (Nobody >> actually cares. It's wilderness anyway.) >> >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:03 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us < >> talk...@openstreetmap.org > wrote: >> > FYI; >> > >> > for all of you who are not in country and do not understand about >> > usa city bounders. >> > >> > https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/contact.html >> > >> > and did you read what the other guy said, this is the census data >> > not true map data. >> > >> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89598349 . >> > >> > > Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:52 AM -05:00 from James Umbanhowar < >> > > jumba...@gmail.com >: >> > > >> > > What link are you using for this? I downloaded the places >> > > boundary >> > > information from here: >> > > https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/geo/shapefiles/index.php >> > > >> > > As I said, I'm happy to change, but I can't change without actual >> > > information. >> > > >> > > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 18:43 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us >> > > wrote: >> > > > i am looking at the TIRGER web, show’s the real map online and >> > > > nothing you did matches. >> > > > >> > > > i live here and a block away from the edens spur just saying. >> > > > >> > > > > Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:38 AM -05:00 from James >> > > Umbanhowar < >> > > > > jumba...@gmail.com >: >> > > > > >> > > > > It would probably be best if these suggestions were added in >> > > the >> > > > > changeset comments, as they don't need to be discussed on the >> > > > > mailing >> > > > > list. >> > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 11:36 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote: >> > > > > > I'm the person who made the changes and am happy to adjust >> > > the >> > > > > map to >> > > > > > better authoritative data or information. My motivation for >> > > this >> > > > > was >> > > > > > to fix a mangled boundary relation that didn't have >> > > consistent >> > > > > outer >> > > > > > and inner members. The changes came in two changesets, >> > > > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89220282 and >> > > > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89516909 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The first changeset just made the relation consistent with >> > > outer >> > > > > ways >> > > > > > and inner ways. I preserved all the ways that were in the >> > > > > relation >> > > > > > that >> > > > > > lead to the inconsistency and they are still in the >> > > database with >> > > > > a >> > > > > > note attached to them. The second came after a changeset >> > > comment >> > > > > that >> > > > > > noted that the fixed relation didn't match and earlier >> > > unbroken >> > > > > > relation, in particular around the Edens Spur. I then >> > > changed the >> > > > > > border in this area to match the 2019 Tiger data in that >> > > area >> > > > > only. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > James >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 02:37 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via >> > > Talk-us >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > Changeset #89220282 >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Monday, August 17, 2020 6:34 PM -05:00 from Mike >> > > Thompson < >> > > > > > > > miketh...@gmail.com >: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:24 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via >> > > Talk-us < >> > > > > > > > talk...@openstreetmap.org > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > tiger is up to date on the web map using the current >> > > data i >> > > > > > > > > just >> > > > > > > > > think he picked the wrong year, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > That relation was first created in 2009. According to >> > > the >> > > > > source >> > > > > > > > tag, it used 2008 Tiger data, so the original mapper >> > > probably >> > > > > > > > used >> > > > > > > > the best available TIGER data at the time. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > also all he got was a white line in his first try. >> > > > > > > > > Way: 813726663 >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > That way needs to be added to the relation, and the >> > > relation >> > > > > must >> > > > > > > > close. >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Talk-us mailing list >> > talk...@openstreetmap.org >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-us mailing list >> talk...@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > >_______________________________________________ >Talk-us mailing list >talk...@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
