Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] Province / State borders
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 6:59 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: I've adjusted the boundary=admin rendering on my tile server to make more sense for North America. Rendering the state / provincial borders at zoom 1 2 might be overdoing it, but at zoom 3 looks reasonable. It does point out a potential shortcoming in the boundary data though. Borders for Vermont and New York appear bolder than for Minnesota and Illinois. Have they been tagged differently, or duplicated? Anyone have a border-checker script? They weren't duplicated. Ian (I believe?) imported the borders for the New England and Mid-Atlantic states and I imported the rest. Looking at my saved .osm files from the state boundary import,it looks like they are tagged: admin_level = 4 border_type = state boundary = administrative state:left = foo state:right = bar Cheers, Adam See it here for part of North East. http://weait.com/maps very slow server/connection. Best regards, Richard P.S. My boundary hack. Rule Filter[admin_level]='4'/Filter MaxScaleDenominator5/MaxScaleDenominator LineSymbolizer CssParameter name=strokepurple/CssParameter CssParameter name=stroke-width1/CssParameter !--CssParameter name=stroke-dasharray4,3/CssParameter-- CssParameter name=stroke-opacity0.2/CssParameter /LineSymbolizer /Rule ___ Talk-us mailing list talk...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] silly borders
We should fix our fence. Ayuh. Good fences make good naaybahs. [1] Shouldn't each border be a single way, with a relation for each adjacent region? around whom does it go clockwise? Shouldn't the entirety of a country's (state/province/county) be a (multi)polygon for area? Can that be emulated by relations, and would that be provided abstraction or a pain in the punctuation for users of the data? can the relation have a REVERSE option so that the entire outline can be traced for a green's theorem planimeter area computation? If there's an island between the lines, can it declare independence? [2] We should have a fence-mending party. We want the fence nice and porous all summer until after WorldCon Montreal. [3] [1] http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/frost-mending.html [2] http://isbn.nu/9780448054476 [3] http://www.anticipationsf.ca/ -- Bill n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] silly borders
Someone get the text to the Treaty of 1818 and figure that one out... I don't seem to have my copy ready by my computer. -- James Fee http://www.spatiallyadjusted.com/ On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Bill Ricker bill.n1...@gmail.com wrote: We should fix our fence. Ayuh. Good fences make good naaybahs. [1] Shouldn't each border be a single way, with a relation for each adjacent region? around whom does it go clockwise? Shouldn't the entirety of a country's (state/province/county) be a (multi)polygon for area? Can that be emulated by relations, and would that be provided abstraction or a pain in the punctuation for users of the data? can the relation have a REVERSE option so that the entire outline can be traced for a green's theorem planimeter area computation? If there's an island between the lines, can it declare independence? [2] We should have a fence-mending party. We want the fence nice and porous all summer until after WorldCon Montreal. [3] [1] http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/frost-mending.html [2] http://isbn.nu/9780448054476 [3] http://www.anticipationsf.ca/ -- Bill n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list talk...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] gnis:reviewed=no map features
if you can put the list of features along with the corrisponding OSM tag to a wiki page, this would be helpful :) (then i can help match features cross-check to what i have) Unfortunately, in the case of my import for USGS Geonames items, they don't have specific feature categories. I'm doing subjective classification based on the names. In the source data, they are just classified as building. So to be more specific about what I am doing, I will take a building named Oregon State Police and tag it with amenity=police. Unless it is named Oregon State Police Administration Building, in which case I will tag it with amenity=public_building. So since I am not mapping discrete values, I don't think my list would be any more useful on a wiki page than the exising Map_Features page. FYI, although I'm calling this an import, mine is a semi-automated manual process. I'm doing this in a text editor on a file with one POI per line. I put in a value on each line for which tag I think it should have, which as I said is a manual guessing process. Lots of editor search-and-replace type stuff. I do have a little program to turn the text file into an osm xml file, but other than that, it is not really automated. I load the XML file into JOSM, validate, and upload from there. i'm opting NOT to use the tag geobase:reviewed=no Your reasoning sounds good. I'm adding it to my load, because my tags are so subjective. I don't think the main USGS Geonames import needed it. Your plan should be fine, in my opinion. - Alan ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] Province / State borders
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Adam Schreiber sa...@clemson.edu wrote: They weren't duplicated. Ian (I believe?) imported the borders for the New England and Mid-Atlantic states and I imported the rest. It might be the county border imports. I imported those without doing any polygon-overlap-detection stuff. So they will probably overlap quite readily in some places. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] silly borders
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Matthew Schneider mlschnei...@bucketofbolts.net wrote: Great. Which one's correct? looks to me like they were traced with subtly different projections that supposedly were squared up but didn't quite fit. E.g., Interesting factoid i just picked up - Warsaw Pact and NATO used the same primary meridians etc for their UTM grids, but minorly different geoids, optimize for their areas of interest, so you can't directly use one side'gmap posits to call artillery of the other ... or plot their textual minefield on your map. -- Bill n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap in The Times - atlas of the world book
When you say listed, does it show an OSM map? Or just name the project? On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:32 AM, Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.comwrote: Hi all, i just wanted to let you all know that on page 57 of this big atlas book, openstreetmap is listed! (a big heavy book) So kids studing geography will see it! Its ISBN 978 0 00 7236701 - The greatest book on earth www.timesatlas.com twelfth edition 2007 -it shows collaborative mapping of Bedford, UK This makes me excited because by the end of this year, all of Canada will be complete! Have a great day! Sam Vekemans Across Canada Trails ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- -- Nick Black twitter.com/nick_b ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] silly borders
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Matthew Schneider mlschnei...@bucketofbolts.net wrote: Fifty-Four Forty or Fight! Actually, it is the 49th parallel, West of Lake of the Woods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Treaty Yup, 49 it is, but there are minor deviations along that line due to measurement inaccuracies of the past. You southerners had best remember though, who it was that burnt down the White House on you... we might be the sleeping dog next door, but we can bite you in the butt in a drunken stupor! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington James VE6SRV ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] silly borders
Stupid spell checker GeoBase, not Georgia. The values in GeoBase for the US borders are from the International Boundary Commission and are consensus values for the internal boundaries. Mike Mepham Federal/Provincial/Territorial Liaison GeoConnections Program Natural Resources Canada E-Mail: mmep...@nrcan.gc.ca Ottawa Regina Phone: (613) 992-8549 (306) 780-3634 Fax: (613) 947-2410 (306) 780-5191 - Original Message - From: talk-ca-boun...@openstreetmap.org talk-ca-boun...@openstreetmap.org To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tue Mar 31 00:15:40 2009 Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] silly borders On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Mepham, Michael michael.mep...@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca wrote: Just accept what has been put into Georgia as the consensus solution, or go crazy trying to fix it! Can you point us towards this Georgia of which you speak? Somewhere there has to be a document that lists the metes and bounds that describe the consensus solution. Better yet, a list of lat/long points since that's what OSM plays with. James VE6SRV ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] silly borders
And for those who like to parse latitude and longitude: http://www.internationalboundarycommission.org/products.html#coordinates Best Regards, Brent Fraser GeoAnalytic Inc. Calgary, Alberta Mepham, Michael wrote: Stupid spell checker GeoBase, not Georgia. The values in GeoBase for the US borders are from the International Boundary Commission and are consensus values for the internal boundaries. Mike Mepham Federal/Provincial/Territorial Liaison GeoConnections Program Natural Resources Canada E-Mail: mmep...@nrcan.gc.ca Ottawa Regina Phone: (613) 992-8549 (306) 780-3634 Fax: (613) 947-2410 (306) 780-5191 - Original Message - From: talk-ca-boun...@openstreetmap.org talk-ca-boun...@openstreetmap.org To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tue Mar 31 00:15:40 2009 Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] silly borders On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Mepham, Michael michael.mep...@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca wrote: Just accept what has been put into Georgia as the consensus solution, or go crazy trying to fix it! Can you point us towards this Georgia of which you speak? Somewhere there has to be a document that lists the metes and bounds that describe the consensus solution. Better yet, a list of lat/long points since that's what OSM plays with. James VE6SRV ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] silly borders
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Brent Fraser bfra...@geoanalytic.com wrote: And for those who like to parse latitude and longitude: http://www.internationalboundarycommission.org/products.html#coordinates Aha, the definitive source that I was asking about... Actual lat/long values of the monuments. One would be hard pressed to dispute this information. The IBC is the authority on the matter as far as I am concerned. James VE6SRV ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] silly borders
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:47 AM, James Ewen ve6...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Brent Fraser bfra...@geoanalytic.com wrote: And for those who like to parse latitude and longitude: http://www.internationalboundarycommission.org/products.html#coordinates Aha, the definitive source that I was asking about... Actual lat/long values of the monuments. One would be hard pressed to dispute this information. The IBC is the authority on the matter as far as I am concerned. So, I checked out the monument at the SE corner of BC... M03140 MONUMENT 272 48 59 56.00114 04 01.96 That's in the NAD27 datum, so I translated that to WGS84 48 59 55.60 114 04 05.53 Then converted it to DD. 48.9988 114.0682 And looking at the corner of BC in Potlatch, highlighting the node, and pressing L, I get: 49.9988 114.0685 That's pretty darned close... Node 331773601 is even closer at 49.9988 114.0683, which might actually be the monument location, and the corner of BC is computed from that. The end result, is that I would concur that the GeoBase borders are much closer to the real world location than the manually input border, or the USGS imports. So, now we need to clean up the erroneous data. The county outlines in the US are circular ways, the GeoBase ways are not.Will it affect rendering by cutting up the US county circular ways, and making them part of a combined way? Can I cut the GeoBase ways at the Alberta, BC and US confluence, and then add in a bunch more tags to the common borders? Can we tag the same way as a border_type: state, and also border_type:international, then do state:left, province:right, county:left, county:right, etc? James VE6SRV ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] silly borders
On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 10:00 -0600, James Ewen wrote: The end result, is that I would concur that the GeoBase borders are much closer to the real world location than the manually input border, or the USGS imports. So, now we need to clean up the erroneous data. The county outlines in the US are circular ways, the GeoBase ways are not.Will it affect rendering by cutting up the US county circular ways, and making them part of a combined way? Can I cut the GeoBase ways at the Alberta, BC and US confluence, and then add in a bunch more tags to the common borders? Can we tag the same way as a border_type: state, and also border_type:international, then do state:left, province:right, county:left, county:right, etc? I think relations are the way to go. Tag the way with the source, uuid and attribution. Split the way at each prov/state/county/regional municipality junction. Add tags only at highest level relation for say, name, place, population, ... Include the way in Canada relation - boundary=admin, admin_level=2 Include the way in USA relation - boundary=admin, admin_level=2 Include the way in state/prov/muni/county relations as appropriate. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Province / State borders
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 4:59 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Borders for Vermont and New York appear bolder than for Minnesota and Illinois. Have they been tagged differently, or duplicated? Anyone have a border-checker script? I see something similar near Emerson, MB. Both are tagged as boundary:administrative admin_level:2 The thin line has a tag of: border_type:country Whereas the thick line has a tag of: border_type:national The thick line also has two relations: boundary: United States boundary: Canada Whereas the thin line has only the additional single tag: country:right:United States. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.00064lon=-97.2292zoom=16layers=B000FTF Oh yeah, pay no attention to those other borders in the area... North Dakota, Minnesota, Pembina County, Kittson County, and the correct GeoBase border. James VE6SRV ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca