Re: [OSM-talk] River boundaries , not Post code areas

[John Smith]

On 6 April 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> And that's all not even considering plate tectonics.

Most of that is mitigated by regional datums, that these days share
the same ellipsod as GPS, in the case of Australia it's DGA94.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] River boundaries , not Post code areas

[John Smith]

On 6 April 2010 23:10, Anthony  wrote:
> Do you have a legal document or court case or something stating that?

I tried to dig up relevant links from the talk-au list but wasn't able
to find the them, maybe Liz will be able to point them out, however I
did find this pdf:

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/B8C0A1AE12E64D53CA2571250007BE10/$File/NSW-VIC+Border+Determination.pdf

Which lists several laws and court decisions...

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] River boundaries , not Post code areas

[Phil! Gold]

* John Smith  [2010-04-05 23:35 EDT]:
> On 6 April 2010 13:19, Liz  wrote:
> > Particularly on the River Murray, where the southern bank is defined as the
> > boundary.
> 
> I thought that's why the boundary should move, the river moving means
> the border moves, doesn't it?

I can't speak to this specific river, but I've done some research on this
topic recently, inspired by the question of what to do when administrative
boundaries run along other ways (roads, rivers, etc.).

It seems to be generally accepted that, absent any specific negotiations
to the contrary, when a boundary is defined by a river, the gradual change
of the river's course over time also causes the boundary to move.  On the
other hand, when a river's course changes abruptly (from a flood, or from
a man-made diversion, for example), the border remains where it was before
the change.  An example of the latter is Carter Lake, Iowa in the US.  A
flood in 1877 moved the Missouri River, which serves as the boundary
between Iowa and Nebraska, onto the opposite side of the town.  The court
system eventually ruled that because the change in the river's path was
abrupt, the borders remained where they were before the flood, and the
town remained in the state of Iowa.

-- 
...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP: 026A27F2  print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248  9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2
--- --
TeX has found at least one bug in every Pascal compiler it's been run on,
I think, and at least two in every C compiler.
   -- Donald Knuth
 --- --

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] River boundaries , not Post code areas

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 5:04 AM, John Smith  > wrote:
> 
> On 6 April 2010 18:00, Igor Brejc  > wrote:
>  > I don't know about NSW and Vic case, but in the above cases the
> official
> 
> Well we're talking about this specific case and the border is based on
> the southern bank of the main flow of the river.
> 
> 
> Do you have a legal document or court case or something stating that?

Without having any detail about Australia, I know for sure that there 
are boundaries which are legally defined in relation to a river or other 
natural feature, and will move if the feature moves. Other boundaries 
are defined as a geometric line which, at the time of definition, 
happened to coincide with a natural feature but will not move with it.

And that's all not even considering plate tectonics.

Bye
Frederik

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] River boundaries , not Post code areas

[Anthony]

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 5:04 AM, John Smith wrote:

> On 6 April 2010 18:00, Igor Brejc  wrote:
> > I don't know about NSW and Vic case, but in the above cases the official
>
> Well we're talking about this specific case and the border is based on
> the southern bank of the main flow of the river.
>

Do you have a legal document or court case or something stating that?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] River boundaries , not Post code areas

[John F. Eldredge]

Having the river move doesn't necessarily move an boundary that had run along 
the river.  It depends upon how the boundary is defined.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- 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: Igor Brejc 
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 09:29:53 
To: John Smith
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] River boundaries , not Post code areas

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] River boundaries , not Post code areas

[John F. Eldredge]

As I mentioned in my real-life case of the Rio Grande changing channels, a 
larger shift in a river's course can leave dry ground, that had formerly been 
on one side of the river, now on the other side of the river.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- 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: Gregory 
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 22:17:33 
To: John Smith
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] River boundaries , not Post code areas

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] River boundaries , not Post code areas

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Gregory wrote:
>Sent: 06 April 2010 6:18 AM
>To: John Smith
>Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] River boundaries , not Post code areas
>
>
>
>On 5 April 2010 20:35, John Smith  wrote:
>
>
>   On 6 April 2010 13:19, Liz  wrote:
>   > The river can move, but leave the boundary behind.
>
>
>   Why leave the boundary?
>
>
>Because people living under water in the area between the old-south bank
>and new-south bank would have the postcode that is south of the boundary.
>That is, if anyone was living under water there.

/me considers mole from Wind in the Willows

Cheers

Andy
>
>
>--
>Gregory
>o...@livingwithdragons.com
>http://www.livingwithdragons.com
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2793 - Release Date: 04/05/10
>19:32:00
>



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] River boundaries , not Post code areas

[John Smith]

On 6 April 2010 18:00, Igor Brejc  wrote:
> I don't know about NSW and Vic case, but in the above cases the official

Well we're talking about this specific case and the border is based on
the southern bank of the main flow of the river.

> borders were set as exact geo points, which were in that time based on the
> river flow. But when the river moved, it did not affect the borders.

The border in this case isn't set on geo points, but a physical
landmark which moves...

> Sometimes the countries then renegotiate a new border, but that's not always
> the case.

The states have gone to court when one made a claim about where the
southern bank moved to, but wasn't the main flow of the river so NSW
lost their case.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] River boundaries , not Post code areas

[Igor Brejc]

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:42 AM, John Smith wrote:

> On 6 April 2010 17:29, Igor Brejc  wrote:
> > Does it?
>
> From a legal point of view.
>
> Legally the border between NSW and Vic is the southern bank of the
> Murray River, it was set this way to try and end border disputes
> between the states, however over time the river moves and caused other
> disputes.
>

I don't know about NSW and Vic case, but in the above cases the official
borders were set as exact geo points, which were in that time based on the
river flow. But when the river moved, it did not affect the borders.
Sometimes the countries then renegotiate a new border, but that's not always
the case.

Igor
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] River boundaries , not Post code areas

[John Smith]

On 6 April 2010 17:29, Igor Brejc  wrote:
> Does it?

>From a legal point of view.

Legally the border between NSW and Vic is the southern bank of the
Murray River, it was set this way to try and end border disputes
between the states, however over time the river moves and caused other
disputes.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] River boundaries , not Post code areas

[Igor Brejc]

> I thought that's why the boundary should move, the river moving means
> the border moves, doesn't it?
>
> Does it?

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.7682&lon=18.8893&zoom=12&layers=B000FTF
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.991&lon=17.329&zoom=11&layers=B000FTF
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=46.5381&lon=16.3773&zoom=13&layers=B000FTF

Regards,
Igor
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] River boundaries , not Post code areas

[Gregory]

On 5 April 2010 20:35, John Smith  wrote:

> On 6 April 2010 13:19, Liz  wrote:
> > The river can move, but leave the boundary behind.
>
> Why leave the boundary?


Because people living under water in the area between the old-south bank and
new-south bank would have the postcode that is south of the boundary. That
is, if anyone was living under water there.


-- 
Gregory
o...@livingwithdragons.com
http://www.livingwithdragons.com
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] River boundaries , not Post code areas

[John Smith]

On 6 April 2010 13:19, Liz  wrote:
> The river can move, but leave the boundary behind.

Why leave the boundary?

> Particularly on the River Murray, where the southern bank is defined as the
> boundary.

I thought that's why the boundary should move, the river moving means
the border moves, doesn't it?

> JS would be able to produce a link with nearmap imagery at Mulwala/Yarrawonga
> to demonstrate this.

link on nearmap.com ?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] River boundaries , not Post code areas

[Liz]

On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I don't understand. Surely you would create a boundary relation that 
> uses the way representing the river to construct the boundary - rather 
> than tracing the boundary line over the river line and having two 
> separate ways?
> 
> That correcting the river then automatically also corrects the boundary 
> follows automatically.
> 
The river can move, but leave the boundary behind.
Particularly on the River Murray, where the southern bank is defined as the 
boundary.
Where dams have flooded the area, the river bank is now further south, but the 
legal border remains at the old riverbank.
JS would be able to produce a link with nearmap imagery at Mulwala/Yarrawonga 
to demonstrate this.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk