Re: [OSM-talk] Boundary relation with 5000 members?
Dear Julio, Some examples of coastline boundaries that I found in Europe: http://osm.org/go/xVvgL5p-- http://osm.org/go/xX2ApwZz- http://osm.org/go/eq...@o- If it is not the right way to do it or there is a better way to do it, please let me know. Most countries in Europe (e.g. UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and others) have the territorial waters as national boundaries. There had been a longer discussion some time ago http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2008-October/012291.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2008-October/012340.html It sums up to: - the correct boundary would be the baseline, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters but nobody uses it, because it is difficult to obtain. - the territorial waters line is much simpler than the coastline: it has 10-100 times fewer nodes and it is much smoother. - the territorial waters often have the look and feel of the boundary: a ferry to an island near the coast doesn't have passport controls like when you cross a national border For this reason I would strongly encourage you to use the territorial waters like most countries in Europe. If you need a tool the generate these territorial water lines automatically, have a look at sweep-brim.c in http://wmaz.math.uni-wuppertal.de/olbricht/osm/osm-boundaries-source.tgz Feel free to ask if you need any help. Cheers, Roland ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Boundary relation with 5000 members?
Hi, Roland Olbricht wrote: For this reason I would strongly encourage you to use the territorial waters like most countries in Europe. As far as I understood Julio, he wanted to say that while they'd use the territorial waters for the country of Chile, their administrative subdivisions do *not* have something like territorial waters, so their authority ends at the coastline. I'm starting to think that maybe we should stop rendering administrative boundaries altogether. I think that technically Julio did the right thing, but this example shows that rendering that kind of boundary is somewhat useless. You might now be tempted to say: Oh well, let's just skip rendering boundaries where the boundary is a also coastline. But firstly this is likely to be complicated with Mapnik, and secondly, much to my dismay, mappers in Germany have begun to map municipal boundaries along the coastline as a separate way, with a geometry *different* from the coastline, arguing that even if the boundary has been defined to match the coastline a certain time ago, the coastline may have changed and legally the boundary has not, creating little bits of maritime territory belonging to the municipality and little bits of land territory between the coast and the border of the seashore municipality. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Boundary relation with 5000 members?
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I'm starting to think that maybe we should stop rendering administrative boundaries altogether. I think that technically Julio did the right thing, but this example shows that rendering that kind of boundary is somewhat useless. Please, no or at least, not all boundaries. In France, we are slowly buidling the first ever free dataset of municipalities boundaries. Not like others, it's not falling into our hands without efforts and we are always very proud to show what has been done so far. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Boundary relation with 5000 members?
Hello, Frederik got the idea almost completely right. The coastline is not the Chilean maritime border but just the regional and municipal border. This is a matter of jurisdiction since the authorities in the land are not the same as in the sea. But we DO have territorial waters, but those are part of the country as a whole and not territorial waters of a certain region or municipality. The extension of certain land borders into the sea, is just to signal (to the people watching the map, without any other data source) that the islands in one side of those lines are part of the X region, and the islands in the other side of the line are part of the Y region. (Examples: http://osm.org/go/MIvRLK- and http://osm.org/go/JczwGC-). Regards, Julio Costa OpenStreetMap Chile http://www.openstreetmap.cl/ On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:00 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Roland Olbricht wrote: For this reason I would strongly encourage you to use the territorial waters like most countries in Europe. As far as I understood Julio, he wanted to say that while they'd use the territorial waters for the country of Chile, their administrative subdivisions do *not* have something like territorial waters, so their authority ends at the coastline. I'm starting to think that maybe we should stop rendering administrative boundaries altogether. I think that technically Julio did the right thing, but this example shows that rendering that kind of boundary is somewhat useless. You might now be tempted to say: Oh well, let's just skip rendering boundaries where the boundary is a also coastline. But firstly this is likely to be complicated with Mapnik, and secondly, much to my dismay, mappers in Germany have begun to map municipal boundaries along the coastline as a separate way, with a geometry *different* from the coastline, arguing that even if the boundary has been defined to match the coastline a certain time ago, the coastline may have changed and legally the boundary has not, creating little bits of maritime territory belonging to the municipality and little bits of land territory between the coast and the border of the seashore municipality. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Boundary relation with 5000 members?
Hi, i put together all boundary relations in the Database and got to this: osm=# select * from relation_tags where relation_id = 305693; relation_id | k | v -+-+- 305693 | admin_level | 4 305693 | boundary| administrative 305693 | name| XI Región Aysén del General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo 305693 | type| boundary (4 rows) osm=# select count(member_id) from relation_members where relation_id = 305693; count --- 5524 (1 row) I havent looked at it very closely - but 5000 members in a boundary relations sounds very much broken ... It is be far leading the boundary relation member highscorer: relation_id | count -+--- 305693 | 5524 301542 | 4442 102039 | 981 356911 | 836 357113 | 772 94354 | 764 51477 | 686 166570 | 668 349004 | 660 391132 | 656 102740 | 651 90162 | 648 51684 | 631 89072 | 608 442397 | 579 Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de Es ist ein grobes Missverständnis und eine Fehlwahrnehmung, dem Staat im Internet Zensur- und Überwachungsabsichten zu unterstellen. - - Bundesminister Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble -- 10. Juli in Berlin signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Boundary relation with 5000 members?
On Sunday 28 March 2010 17:50:07 Florian Lohoff wrote: 305693 | name| XI Región Aysén del General Carlos Ibáñez del I havent looked at it very closely - but 5000 members in a boundary relations sounds very much broken ... I think that is what you get when people put the coastline into a boundary relation: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-47.48lon=-73.79zoom=6layers=B000FTF -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Boundary relation with 5000 members?
sylvain letuffe wrote: - you reach easily the API max members limit There is no such limit (yet). -- Lennard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Boundary relation with 5000 members?
Le dimanche 28 mars 2010 23:38:19, vous avez écrit : sylvain letuffe wrote: - you reach easily the API max members limit There is no such limit (yet). My mistake, I mixed up nodes per way limit and relation members http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/capabilities But after trying to create a 6000 members test relation, I can confirm managing/uploading it with josm is a bit hard and long process. -- sly sylvain letuffe ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
