Have seen it too in California. It's not only the elevation also lat/lon is
wrong for many summits.
If there is any better source correct it. I verify it by gps and topo 24k and
yahoo. If there is any official and better data I am all for replacing GNIS
data.
On 9 Feb 2010, at 19:35 , Mike Th
It appears that there is a systematic error in the summit elevations
in OSM, at least in Colorado. For example, Longs Peak is listed in
OSM as having an elevation of 4340 meters (14,239 ft). The topo map
has it as 14,251 ft. I have noticed the same type of issue with
nearby peaks. I suspect thi
Alright then, I'm throwing my hat into the ring...
I accept the nomination to run for the temporary board of the U.S. Chapter
of OSM.
I have been active in the Washington OSM community since late 2008. I have
both helped organize and participate mapping parties in the Washington, DC
area, contrib
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 15:35:20 -0600, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Anthony wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Â Â
> >>
> >> By the way, what is the datum for the elevat
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 15:35:20 -0600, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
>>>
>>> Â Â
>>
>> By the way, what is the datum for the elevation figure?
>
>I don't believe that it is specified explicitly,
NAD83 and WGS84 are only horizontal datums. Here is some information
about the most current vertical datum in the U.S.
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/faq.shtml#GeodeticVSTide
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at
Dave Hansen wrote:
> Yeah, that's sane. If for no other reason than the fact that the mile
> markers reset at state lines. I guess they're also the maintenance
> boundaries.
You'd guess wrong. They're at least as low as county level, at least in
my state.
7 matches
Mail list logo
