Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mapping of Boundary
Kenny Moens wrote: Hello guys, In the region where I live (Hulshout), some of the borders are recently mapped, but they don't follow the exact features which form the border. For example, in the area between Ramsel and Westmeerbeek the city border follows the "Steenkensbeek" which I recently mapped based on Bing data, if I look at the border itself it has much less points and more-or-less follows the stream, but not exactly as it should be. How is the best way to correct this? * Splitting the border and adding the tags/relations of the border to the stream. Which would mean the line of the stream would both represent the border and the stream itself. * Glueing all points of the border towards the stream, so that they form a single line (but are effectively still two separate lines). * Or something else. I don't know if Mapnik renders relations, but if it does, than 1 seems a good idea. But then you have to take care then when the stream is moved (physically) the border does not have to move. 2 is done in most cases. Maarten ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mapping of Boundary
Hello Le dimanche 05 décembre 2010 à 10:02, Kenny Moens a écrit : > In the region where I live (Hulshout), some of the borders are recently > mapped, but they don't follow the exact features which form the border. > For example, in the area between Ramsel and Westmeerbeek the city border > follows the "Steenkensbeek" which I recently mapped based on Bing data, > if I look at the border itself it has much less points and more-or-less > follows the stream, but not exactly as it should be. > > How is the best way to correct this? > > * Splitting the border and adding the tags/relations of the border > to the stream. Which would mean the line of the stream would both > represent the border and the stream itself. > * Glueing all points of the border towards the stream, so that they > form a single line (but are effectively still two separate lines). > * Or something else. There has been discussions about this on the talk list. From what I understood, I'd say: - If the border is legally bound to the stream, and should move with it in case its path change, then you should tag it on the same way (or share the nodes). - If it is actually on the same path than the stream, but must stay where it is in case the stream path change, then draw a separate way, approximately over the stream, but not sharing nodes. -- Renaud Michel ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mapping of Boundary
A lot of municipality borders follow the course of rivers,... as they were when the borders were fixed. A lot of small rivers have been modernised for the first time during the 1840-1860 time. Curves have been removed, and so on... That was well after the fixing of the borders. So in a lot of cases rivers do not follow the municipality borders anymore... In some occasions the borders have been re-fixed to the natural border (river) during the +/- 1970 time of municipality-fusions, where they occured. It might be wise to have a 'sneak view' on some other source to check what is the case in Ramsel/Westmeerbeek... Luc/Speedy On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Maarten Deen wrote: > Kenny Moens wrote: > >> Hello guys, >> >> In the region where I live (Hulshout), some of the borders are recently >> mapped, but they don't follow the exact features which form the border. For >> example, in the area between Ramsel and Westmeerbeek the city border follows >> the "Steenkensbeek" which I recently mapped based on Bing data, if I look at >> the border itself it has much less points and more-or-less follows the >> stream, but not exactly as it should be. >> >> How is the best way to correct this? >> >>* Splitting the border and adding the tags/relations of the border >> to the stream. Which would mean the line of the stream would both >> represent the border and the stream itself. >>* Glueing all points of the border towards the stream, so that they >> form a single line (but are effectively still two separate lines). >>* Or something else. >> > > I don't know if Mapnik renders relations, but if it does, than 1 seems a > good idea. But then you have to take care then when the stream is moved > (physically) the border does not have to move. > > 2 is done in most cases. > > Maarten > > ___ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mapping of Boundary
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Kenny Moens wrote: > Hello guys, > > In the region where I live (Hulshout), some of the borders are recently > mapped, but they don't follow the exact features which form the border. For > example, in the area between Ramsel and Westmeerbeek the city border follows > the "Steenkensbeek" which I recently mapped based on Bing data, if I look at > the border itself it has much less points and more-or-less follows the > stream, but not exactly as it should be. > > How is the best way to correct this? > > Splitting the border and adding the tags/relations of the border to the > stream. Which would mean the line of the stream would both represent the > border and the stream itself. No, never do this. Boundaries need their own ways. Just like you shouldn't add railway=tram to a highway tag because there are tram rails. It's prone to give rendering problems. > Glueing all points of the border towards the stream, so that they form a > single line (but are effectively still two separate lines). Either this, or just moving the boundary to the same location of the stream without using the same nodes. There's an argument for both. Ben ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mapping of Boundary
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Renaud MICHEL wrote: > - If the border is legally bound to the stream, and should move with it in > case its path change, then you should tag it on the same way (or share the > nodes). > > - If it is actually on the same path than the stream, but must stay where it > is in case the stream path change, then draw a separate way, approximately > over the stream, but not sharing nodes. Boundaries used to be bound to streams, roads etc, but not any more. Now they're all defined by sets of coordinates. If for example bad weather happens and the stream suddenly follows a different course, the boundary won't move with it. And there are many streams and rivers that changed course over time (mostly with some human help of course), but where the boundaries never followed suit. In any case: the boundaries that are lately put in by kocr and mdri are approximations, they still need to be moved them to their correct location. Greetings Ben ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mapping of Boundary
On dimanche 05 décembre 2010 at 12:30, Ben Laenen wrote : > Boundaries used to be bound to streams, roads etc, but not any more. > Now they're all defined by sets of coordinates. If for example bad > weather happens and the stream suddenly follows a different course, > the boundary won't move with it. And there are many streams and rivers > that changed course over time (mostly with some human help of course), > but where the boundaries never followed suit. Thank you. On talk some people argued that in their country come boundary were legally bound to some physical feature, and I didn't know what was the case for Belgium. -- Renaud Michel ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
