2010/7/7 Frederik Ramm :
> sense. I think in many cases the boundary definition does not exist
> independently of the feature.
yes, of course if this is the case (and boundary mapping depends on
the feature and not on an import), it is perfectly right to do it,
otherwise it's perfectly wrong ;-).
It really depends on how the boundaries are legally defined. In my country,
boundaries between barangays (the smallest political unit) in a city or
municipality often are defined in terms of roads especially in urban cities
and municipalities. The boundary is not even the centerline but the road
it
Hi,
M?rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
so I it seems your country is doing things just as any other country
and you should think about not glueing borders to features.
I think glueing borders to features is perfectly all right; I even
advise people to use roads or river centrelines in boundary relat
(although with JOSM you can easily unglue nodes or you can also delete the
way and create a new one when these changes are required).
It depends on your definition of easy.In the cases I have run into, it
is necessary to modify a short section of road, therefore I can't just
select all no
2010/7/7 Pieren :
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:56 AM, John F. Eldredge
>> So, what happens in your region if the road planners decide to alter the
>> position of part of a road,
> Most probably the boundary will not move. But we also have many cases where
> boundaries are moving but not the features
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:56 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> So, what happens in your region if the road planners decide to alter the
> position of part of a road, such as making a curve more gentle? Are the
> municipal borders then shifted so that they still match the roadway, or so
> they now diff
-- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
-Original Message-
From: Pieren
Sender: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 17:18:13
To: OSM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Area-t
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Liz wrote:
> The southern bank of the Murray River is the border between 2 states.
> Where the river has been flooded by building a dam the southern bank has
> moved. (Yarrawonga-Mulwala region)
> Legal answer for this boundary - the boundary did not move.
>
>
The
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010, Pieren wrote:
> > You missunderstood : the definition of the border IS the middle of the
> > road
>
> or river. If we find a legal source for the admin boundary, it is most of
> the time less accurate then a GPS trace following the feature irl.
there is no misunderstanding
the
At 2010-07-06 13:43, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Pieren wrote:
>You missunderstood : the definition of the border IS the middle of the road
It may be the middle of the road *as it existed when the border was
defined*. It's usually not the middle of the road as it exists now,
unless there have been no
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> It may be the middle of the road *as it existed when the border was
> defined*. It's usually not the middle of the road as it exists now,
> unless there have been no changes, however slight, to the road
> alignment. Pages 28 and 31 of
>
>
At 2010-07-06 13:21, Pieren wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:07 PM,
Alan Mintz
wrote:
It's exactly because they are added
from different sources that it is incorrect to merge them. If you adjust
a border from a "more accurate" source, you should adjust that
border, n
Pieren wrote:
>You missunderstood : the definition of the border IS the middle of the road
It may be the middle of the road *as it existed when the border was
defined*. It's usually not the middle of the road as it exists now,
unless there have been no changes, however slight, to the road
alignment
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Alan Mintz
> wrote:
> It's exactly because they are added from different sources that it is
> incorrect to merge them. If you adjust a border from a "more accurate"
> source, you should adjust that border, not everything else that is glued to
> it (other than that
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Nakor wrote:
> If the river/road/... is the actual boundary, shouldn't the same way be
> used for both instead of having duplicate ways? I've seen this done in some
> places (Ohio IIRC)
>
>
We had a lot of discussions about that. Finally, the answer (in my country)
At 2010-07-06 08:18, Pieren wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:07 PM,
Mâ¡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
Also it makes border far more complicated (and thus even false)
when
glued to features: roads need to have more nodes than just for the
position (maxspeed, turnrestrictions, c
On 7 July 2010 05:51, Nakor wrote:
> If the river/road/... is the actual boundary, shouldn't the same way be used
> for both instead of having duplicate ways? I've seen this done in some
> places (Ohio IIRC)
The boundary might be similar to other features, but unless you like
reading a lot of leg
On 7/6/2010 11:18 AM, Pieren wrote:
Again, this depends on the region you are contributing. In my region,
most of the municipality borders are in fact glued to the middle of
features like roads, tracks or rivers. Those features can be added in
OSM from different sources (imagery, GPS, land
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:07 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Also it makes border far more complicated (and thus even false) when
> glued to features: roads need to have more nodes than just for the
> position (maxspeed, turnrestrictions, crossing streets, ...) while
> borders are defined by a cou
2010/7/5 Pieren :
> So you ask people to not join the nodes just because you make the assumption
> that this person is contributing in US and that a majority of US boundaries
> have errors...
> I could also say that if the boundary is really following the road, then
> there is no harm to join the n
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> It's extremely common in the US that imported TIGER data will have a
> road in the old position, which happens to match a boundary (or
> parallel it, with TIGER having it erroneously on the road), or that
> TIGER will make the same mistake
Ed Avis wrote:
>Nathan Edgars II gmail.com> writes:
>>Depends what the way is. If it's a street, the area most likely stops
>>at the right-of-way line, and does not extend to the middle of the
>>street, so it would be incorrect to extend the area into the street.
>>On the other hand, if it's somet
Nathan Edgars II gmail.com> writes:
>>I am confused, what is the preferred approach to map boundaries of areas,
>>that in reality are bounded by a street or another way. Whether to draw the
>>boundary over this way (possibly using the same nodes), or to draw them in
>>parallel but close to this w
>I am confused, what is the preferred approach to map boundaries of areas,
>that in reality are bounded by a street or another way. Whether to draw the
>boundary over this way (possibly using the same nodes), or to draw them in
>parallel but close to this way?
Depends what the way is. If it's a st
I am confused, what is the preferred approach to map boundaries of areas,
that in reality are bounded by a street or another way. Whether to draw the
boundary over this way (possibly using the same nodes), or to draw them in
parallel but close to this way? On the map, I see example of the first
app
25 matches
Mail list logo