Re: [Talk-us] semi-apology Re: "Screw-up" of borders

[Toby Murray]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> I'd like to apologize for specifically naming ToeBee and Techlady in subject
> lines, and any connotation that may have been attached to "screwup". The
> former was my error at reading the tea leaves of node histories, and the
> latter was Techlady's error but perhaps my overreaction.

> If this sounds forced and meaningless, I apologize for the way I am.

Thanks. I was most upset by your immediate attempt to revert my
changeset without waiting for any discussion. Especially considering
how many objects were involved and the fact that the changeset in
question obviously did a lot more than just moving border nodes
around. I have seen errors in some of your large changesets too but I
have never considered doing a complete revert. I fix what I know and
move on.

> I am disturbed by the way people don't seem to care that the data can be so
> easily damaged and so hard to fix. I've seen other inadvertent damage, such
> as where someone selects a road and hits T to force it to a straight line,
> last for years. Even worse was where someone had turned a boundary into a
> circle; luckily I was able to revert that one without conflict.

I won't disagree with this. But to some degree that is unavoidable in
a crowdsourced environment. We can always make the tools better but
new users will always find a way to break something. That's why there
is a community to watch out for mistakes, discuss them when they
happen and then take appropriate action to correct them.

As it applies specifically to boundaries, I would point back to my
suggestion a week or two ago (maybe sent to talk) that JOSM come with
a default filter enabled that prevents administrative boundaries from
being edited. When I am not editing boundaries, I usually have such a
filter enabled for myself anyway. Does P2 have any kind of filtering
capabilities? Would be nice to do the same there.

In this instance, the original error made by techlady was an accident.
I believe she was editing roads in the border area and happened to
grab the state border and ended up moving the whole thing. I've done
similar things many times and have seen the results of others doing it
too. JOSM is pretty good about catching such mistakes on big objects
and slapping you for it. I intentionally do not disable that popup
warning even though it can be annoying when I really am working with
large objects.

Anyway, I'm glad we were able to resolve the Colorado border problem.

Toby

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

Re: [Talk-us] Cool ITO World US and Canada coverage

[Alan Mintz]

At 2011-03-25 14:54, Coast, Hurricane wrote:
Thought that the US and Canada
might be interested in this: 
http://itoworld.blogspot.com/2011/03/ito-map-extended-to-cover-usa-canada.html
Great tool for visualizing speed limits, FIXMEs, layers, etc.!

--
Alan Mintz 



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

Re: [Talk-us] border screwup by Techlady needs reverting

[Toby Murray]

The western border has been aligned. I'm not in the business of making
guarantees but in general I believe the error should be under 10
meters, compared to the TIGER shapefile. And yes, the shapefile has
the border running a few meters to the north of the center of the Four
Corners Monument, according to Bing imagery. Go figure.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7671977

Toby

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

[Talk-us] semi-apology Re: "Screw-up" of borders

[Nathan Edgars II]

I'd like to apologize for specifically naming ToeBee and Techlady in 
subject lines, and any connotation that may have been attached to 
"screwup". The former was my error at reading the tea leaves of node 
histories, and the latter was Techlady's error but perhaps my overreaction.


If this sounds forced and meaningless, I apologize for the way I am.


I am disturbed by the way people don't seem to care that the data can be 
so easily damaged and so hard to fix. I've seen other inadvertent 
damage, such as where someone selects a road and hits T to force it to a 
straight line, last for years. Even worse was where someone had turned a 
boundary into a circle; luckily I was able to revert that one without 
conflict.


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

[Talk-us] Cool ITO World US and Canada coverage

[Coast, Hurricane]

Thought that the US and Canada might be interested in this:

http://itoworld.blogspot.com/2011/03/ito-map-extended-to-cover-usa-canada.html


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

Re: [Talk-us] "Screw-up" of borders

[Steven Johnson]

+1

Please discuss errors with users off-list first. There may be occasions for
publicly shaming someone, (e.g. deliberate vandalism) but honest mistakes do
not meet this threshold.

Thanks,

-- SEJ

t: @geomantics: sejohnson8

"A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely
of jokes." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein



On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 14:03, Richard Welty  wrote:

>  On 3/25/11 1:53 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote:
>
> Also, before you post publicly that someone in OSM has "screwed
> up," I think that, at the least, you should discuss the situation with that
> person off-list. Using terms, such as "screwed up," is not helpful to our
> mutual effort of creating an open-source map of the world. I'm sure we all
> are trying to do our best and welcome feedback about mistakes, if it is
> given in a helpful and positive manner. I hope you will keep that in mind
> for the future.
>
> i'd like to bring this point out: in general, try to contact people off
> list before calling them out on a public list like talk-us
>
> things may not be what you think they are, or the situation may have a
> quiet, reasonable resolution that's easy to see and
> reach once you talk.
>
> richard
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] "Screw-up" of borders

[Richard Welty]

On 3/25/11 1:53 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote:
Also, before you post publicly that someone in OSM has "screwed up," I 
think that, at the least, you should discuss the situation with that 
person off-list. Using terms, such as "screwed up," is not helpful to 
our mutual effort of creating an open-source map of the world. I'm 
sure we all are trying to do our best and welcome feedback about 
mistakes, if it is given in a helpful and positive manner. I hope you 
will keep that in mind for the future.
i'd like to bring this point out: in general, try to contact people off 
list before calling them out on a public list like talk-us


things may not be what you think they are, or the situation may have a 
quiet, reasonable resolution that's easy to see and

reach once you talk.

richard

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

Re: [Talk-us] using address interpolation with building polygons

[Richard Welty]

On 3/25/11 1:36 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:

* Richard Welty  [2011-03-25 12:07 -0400]:

i see no examples of using interpolation ways with building polygons.
can anyone point me to any examples of this?

The only time I've mixed the two has been with stripmall-style buildings
where there are a series of businesses in the same building (or, if you
like, a series of adjacent buildings with uniform storefronts).  Rather
than terrace the buildings[0], I often just trace the outline of the whole
set, mark it as building=yes, and add an unconnected address interpolation
line, like so: http://osm.org/go/ZcIoRxFhk--

I'm not sure if that's the answer you were looking for, but it's the best
I've come up with for relating address interpolation and polygonal
buildings.
what i'm looking at is a rural residential road where there are 
scattered homes
and the intermittant business where i've done the building outline 
instead of just
an node with an address. the address nodes work just fine, but i have no 
idea

how to include a building polygon with an address on the way into an address
interpolation and have it work.

the answer may be that it doesn't, which would be a little 
disappointing, but also
if that's the case the wiki page on address interpolations should 
explicitly say

that this is the case

richard


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

[Talk-us] "Screw-up" of borders

[Charlotte Wolter]

Nathan,

I read on the Talk US forum that I have made a mistake on a 
state boundary near Four Corners. Specifically, you said I had 
"screwed up" the border. It would have been helpful if you had 
contacted me directly and worked with me to fix that mistake. I wish 
you had given me the courtesy that you apparently gave ToeBee in 
trying to work with him to change the mistake.
To my knowledge, I have made no changes to the state borders 
in the Four Corners area, though I have worked on many roads in that 
area. What was the date of the change, and how large was the error? 
You did not provide specific information in your posting.
Also, before you post publicly that someone in OSM has 
"screwed up," I think that, at the least, you should discuss the 
situation with that person off-list. Using terms, such as "screwed 
up," is not helpful to our mutual effort of creating an open-source 
map of the world. I'm sure we all are trying to do our best and 
welcome feedback about mistakes, if it is given in a helpful and 
positive manner. I hope you will keep that in mind for the future.


Charlotte Wolter


Charlotte Wolter
927 18th Street Suite A
Santa Monica, California
90403
+1-310-597-4040
techl...@techlady.com

The Four Internet Freedoms
Freedom to visit any site on the Internet
Freedom to access any content or service that is not illegal
Freedom to attach any device that does not interfere with the network
Freedom to know all the terms of a service, particularly any that 
would affect the first three freedoms.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] using address interpolation with building polygons

[Phil! Gold]

* Richard Welty  [2011-03-25 12:07 -0400]:
> i see no examples of using interpolation ways with building polygons.
> can anyone point me to any examples of this?

The only time I've mixed the two has been with stripmall-style buildings
where there are a series of businesses in the same building (or, if you
like, a series of adjacent buildings with uniform storefronts).  Rather
than terrace the buildings[0], I often just trace the outline of the whole
set, mark it as building=yes, and add an unconnected address interpolation
line, like so: http://osm.org/go/ZcIoRxFhk--

I'm not sure if that's the answer you were looking for, but it's the best
I've come up with for relating address interpolation and polygonal
buildings.

[0] And the JOSM terracing plugin doesn't always work for this sort of
thing.  Often, the store fronts will be uniform, but the backs will
extend different distances from the fronts.  The terracer gets really
unhappy with things like that.

-- 
...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP: 026A27F2  print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248  9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2
--- --
The problem with using C++ ... is that there's already a strong tendency
in the language to require you to know everything before you can do
anything.
   -- Larry Wall
 --- --

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

Re: [Talk-us] using address interpolation with building polygons

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Richard Welty  wrote:
> On 3/25/11 1:18 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
>>
>> Check Washington, DC out. Lots and lots of building with addresses.
>
> buildings with addresses participating in address interpolation ways?

Oops. Serves me right for not reading the whole mail.

- Serge

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

Re: [Talk-us] using address interpolation with building polygons

[Richard Welty]

On 3/25/11 1:18 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:

Check Washington, DC out. Lots and lots of building with addresses.

buildings with addresses participating in address interpolation ways?

richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] using address interpolation with building polygons

[Serge Wroclawski]

Check Washington, DC out. Lots and lots of building with addresses.

- Serge

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

Re: [Talk-us] border screwup by Techlady needs reverting

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 3/25/2011 12:28 PM, Toby Murray wrote:

Yep, it is off by a couple hundred meters in some places. When I get
home tonight I will download the latest Census shapefile and align the
Colorado border to it by hand. A brief check shows that this data does
have the border going through the monuments as well as that 3rd node
you linked to (or at least where that node SHOULD be - it is 40 meters
north of the nearest roadway)


Thank you for taking the time to fix it.

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

Re: [Talk-us] border screwup by Techlady needs reverting

[Toby Murray]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 4:49 AM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
>
> That's nowhere near the extent of the damage.
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?node=83787064 is supposed to be on the state
> line. On
> http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/topo/250k/txu-pclmaps-topo-us-moab-1962.jpg
> (a bit south of the center) you can see a major imperfection in the border
> just south of that crossing. Getting the exact lat/long of every defined
> point on the border would be best, but the pre-Techlady status was certainly
> better than it is now.

Yep, it is off by a couple hundred meters in some places. When I get
home tonight I will download the latest Census shapefile and align the
Colorado border to it by hand. A brief check shows that this data does
have the border going through the monuments as well as that 3rd node
you linked to (or at least where that node SHOULD be - it is 40 meters
north of the nearest roadway)

This is how the map is improved, not through unilateral reverting of
large changesets.

Toby

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

Re: [Talk-us] using address interpolation with building polygons

[Mike N]

On 3/25/2011 12:07 PM, Richard Welty wrote:

so i'm looking at address interpolation ways here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:interpolation

and while it's straightforward enough to use with nodes with address
tags, i see no examples of using interpolation ways with building polygons.
can anyone point me to any examples of this?


  I'm not sure if I can visualize this - how would a an address be 
geo-located in a square building?In a rectangular or L-shaped building?


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

[Talk-us] using address interpolation with building polygons

[Richard Welty]

so i'm looking at address interpolation ways here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:interpolation

and while it's straightforward enough to use with nodes with address
tags, i see no examples of using interpolation ways with building polygons.
can anyone point me to any examples of this?

thanks,
   richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] border screwup by ToeBee needs reverting

[Phil! Gold]

* Nathan Edgars II  [2011-03-25 08:04 -0400]:
> I would say it's more important to have the border in the right
> place (at least such that all roads in one state are on the correct
> side).

So either fix it or *politely* ask the person who made the change to fix
the alignment.  (Trying to revert a changeset made by a committed,
experienced mapper is *not* polite.)  It looks to me like ToeBee joined
together the state and county borders, which, if Colorado was anything
like Maryland, probably differed from each other by more than the
positioning error we're currently discussing.  To me, that seems like an
improvement, and if he made some alignment errors, that's worth an
informative comment ("Hey, the county boundaries are defined by surveyed
points that only approximated an exact longitude alignment,") not an
imperious demand that it be fixed.

I made almost the same mistake with Maryland's northern boundary.  After
reading more about the boundary, I realized my mistake and realigned it to
USGS data.  I'm glad no one berated me for doing it wrong before I
corrected my own mistake.

-- 
...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP: 026A27F2  print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248  9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2
--- --
Every advance in civilization has been denounced while it was still
recent.
   -- Bertrand Russell
 --- --

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

Re: [Talk-us] border screwup by ToeBee needs reverting

[Ian Dees]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

> On 3/25/2011 8:37 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Nathan Edgars II > > wrote:
>>
>>On 3/25/2011 7:49 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
>>
>>I would say that a better use of our time would be in creating
>>boundary
>>relations to fix the duplicated county/state boundaries.
>>
>>I would say it's more important to have the border in the right
>>place (at least such that all roads in one state are on the correct
>>side).
>>
>>
>> I would disagree. No one is going to use OpenStreetMap to solve border
>> disputes in the US. There are higher quality datasets that come from the
>> people that make the rules. On the other hand, removing overlapping
>> boundary ways will clean up the existing OSM data, make it easier to
>> edit and easier to consume.
>>
>
> I'm not sure what to make of this response. Why would you say we have
> borders in OSM? Would that reason be better suited by having the borders be
> in the correct place but duplicated or by having them in the wrong place but
> consolidated?
>

I don't know why we have borders in OSM. I'm assuming they're in there
because people saw the data available and imported it (like I did with the
county borders a few years ago -- one of several imports that I wish I could
take back). It could also be because it makes for a decent thing to draw on
the map at low zoom.

I personally don't think borders that are controlled by others belong in OSM
but if others insist that the borders are there then I think they should at
least be represented with clean OSM data.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] border screwup by ToeBee needs reverting

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 3/25/2011 8:37 AM, Ian Dees wrote:

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Nathan Edgars II mailto:nerou...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On 3/25/2011 7:49 AM, Ian Dees wrote:

I would say that a better use of our time would be in creating
boundary
relations to fix the duplicated county/state boundaries.

I would say it's more important to have the border in the right
place (at least such that all roads in one state are on the correct
side).


I would disagree. No one is going to use OpenStreetMap to solve border
disputes in the US. There are higher quality datasets that come from the
people that make the rules. On the other hand, removing overlapping
boundary ways will clean up the existing OSM data, make it easier to
edit and easier to consume.


I'm not sure what to make of this response. Why would you say we have 
borders in OSM? Would that reason be better suited by having the borders 
be in the correct place but duplicated or by having them in the wrong 
place but consolidated?


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

Re: [Talk-us] border screwup by ToeBee needs reverting

[Ian Dees]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

> On 3/25/2011 7:49 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
>
>> I would say that a better use of our time would be in creating boundary
>> relations to fix the duplicated county/state boundaries.
>>
>>  I would say it's more important to have the border in the right place (at
> least such that all roads in one state are on the correct side).
>

I would disagree. No one is going to use OpenStreetMap to solve border
disputes in the US. There are higher quality datasets that come from the
people that make the rules. On the other hand, removing overlapping boundary
ways will clean up the existing OSM data, make it easier to edit and easier
to consume.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] border screwup by ToeBee needs reverting

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 3/25/2011 7:49 AM, Ian Dees wrote:

I would say that a better use of our time would be in creating boundary
relations to fix the duplicated county/state boundaries.

I would say it's more important to have the border in the right place 
(at least such that all roads in one state are on the correct side).


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

Re: [Talk-us] border screwup by ToeBee needs reverting

[Ian Dees]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 3:44 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:

> ...
>
> I'd say that reverting the border fix changeset would be wrong, given the
> number of problems it fixed with the borders. I'd say it was definitely
> wrong to attempt to revert it over ToeBee's objections.
>
>
+1

I would say that a better use of our time would be in creating boundary
relations to fix the duplicated county/state boundaries.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] border screwup by Techlady needs reverting

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 3/25/2011 5:43 AM, Toby Murray wrote:

Thank you for the apology.

I don't think that revert is going to happen though. Even if I agreed
that this was the solution, it would be a nightmare. I did a lot of
boundary work in that changeset involving splitting circular county
border ways, creating relations, deleting superfluous nodes and
un-grouping boundary nodes that were joined to roads to satisfy the
evil that is the duplicate node checker.


Perhaps simply moving the nodes back would be enough? This of course 
wouldn't work if a lot of nodes were removed.


In fact, my changes make it substantially easier to edit the border in
the first place without creating additional conflicts or having to
move a thousand useless nodes along the way. So how about instead of
spending hours trying to undo even more hours of my work, you instead
spend 10 minutes to improve upon it yourself?


I actually was going to move the two nodes, but then saw that there was 
a bigger problem.


I think Paul may have beaten you to it though. The nodes in question
now appear precisely over the monuments. Colorado is safe for another
day. Well... as long as they can avoid those wildfires...


That's nowhere near the extent of the damage. 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?node=83787064 is supposed to be on the 
state line. On 
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/topo/250k/txu-pclmaps-topo-us-moab-1962.jpg 
(a bit south of the center) you can see a major imperfection in the 
border just south of that crossing. Getting the exact lat/long of every 
defined point on the border would be best, but the pre-Techlady status 
was certainly better than it is now.


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

Re: [Talk-us] border screwup by Techlady needs reverting

[Toby Murray]

Thank you for the apology.

I don't think that revert is going to happen though. Even if I agreed
that this was the solution, it would be a nightmare. I did a lot of
boundary work in that changeset involving splitting circular county
border ways, creating relations, deleting superfluous nodes and
un-grouping boundary nodes that were joined to roads to satisfy the
evil that is the duplicate node checker.

In fact, my changes make it substantially easier to edit the border in
the first place without creating additional conflicts or having to
move a thousand useless nodes along the way. So how about instead of
spending hours trying to undo even more hours of my work, you instead
spend 10 minutes to improve upon it yourself?

I think Paul may have beaten you to it though. The nodes in question
now appear precisely over the monuments. Colorado is safe for another
day. Well... as long as they can avoid those wildfires...

Toby

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

Re: [Talk-us] border screwup by Techlady needs reverting

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 3/25/2011 4:44 AM, Paul Norman wrote:

The first of your examples ('015 node) appears to be more accurate than the
node it replaced in one of the ways,
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/263660932 which was farther away
from the monument (based on NAIP imagery)

In the second one ('476 node), the changeset improved the position of the
node. It wasn't aligned before. In any case, after the changeset it was only
about 8m off according to NAIP imagery.


Yes, see my response (it was actually Techlady that screwed it up).

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

Re: [Talk-us] border screwup by ToeBee needs reverting

[Paul Norman]

The first of your examples ('015 node) appears to be more accurate than the
node it replaced in one of the ways,
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/263660932 which was farther away
from the monument (based on NAIP imagery)

In the second one ('476 node), the changeset improved the position of the
node. It wasn't aligned before. In any case, after the changeset it was only
about 8m off according to NAIP imagery.

I'd say that reverting the border fix changeset would be wrong, given the
number of problems it fixed with the borders. I'd say it was definitely
wrong to attempt to revert it over ToeBee's objections.


> -Original Message-
> From: Nathan Edgars II [mailto:nerou...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 12:56 AM
> To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list
> Subject: [Talk-us] border screwup by ToeBee needs reverting
> 
> User ToeBee has, in several changesets in February, aligned state
> borders to exact lat/long. The problem is that this is not how the
> borders are defined; instead they are based on work that the 19th
> century surveyors did with the tools they had. Two obvious examples
> follow:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/158796015/history is the famous
> "Four Corners":
> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705298412/Four-Corners-marker-212-
> miles-off-Too-late.html
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/158790476/history is the
> northwest corner of Colorado, which is also marked by a large monument,
> visible on aerials.
> 
> It's likely that any border node moved by ToeBee needs to be reverted. I
> tried to do this after informing him (he's currently denying there's a
> problem), but JOSM's reverter plugin is giving hundreds of conflicts.
> This damage needs to be undone.
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


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

Re: [Talk-us] border screwup by Techlady needs reverting

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 3/25/2011 4:17 AM, Toby Murray wrote:

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:56 AM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:

User ToeBee has, in several changesets in February, aligned state borders to
exact lat/long. The problem is that this is not how the borders are defined;
instead they are based on work that the 19th century surveyors did with the
tools they had. Two obvious examples follow:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/158796015/history is the famous
"Four Corners":
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705298412/Four-Corners-marker-212-miles-off-Too-late.html
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/158790476/history is the northwest
corner of Colorado, which is also marked by a large monument, visible on
aerials.


I am not saying my edit was perfect. But the position of the nodes
before my edit was even further off than it is now. The northwest node
is now 10 meters straight south of the monument where it was over 1km
east. The southwest node was off by 1km as well and is now about 400
meters west.
You know, you're actually correct. TechLady screwed it up in the first 
place; prior to her edits, it was right on the Four Corners monument. I 
apologize for assigning all the blame to you.


So now the problem is worse: two people's edits need to be reverted. You 
tried to fix it, so again I'm sorry for coming down on you.


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

Re: [Talk-us] border screwup by ToeBee needs reverting

[Toby Murray]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:56 AM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> User ToeBee has, in several changesets in February, aligned state borders to
> exact lat/long. The problem is that this is not how the borders are defined;
> instead they are based on work that the 19th century surveyors did with the
> tools they had. Two obvious examples follow:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/158796015/history is the famous
> "Four Corners":
> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705298412/Four-Corners-marker-212-miles-off-Too-late.html
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/158790476/history is the northwest
> corner of Colorado, which is also marked by a large monument, visible on
> aerials.
>
> It's likely that any border node moved by ToeBee needs to be reverted. I
> tried to do this after informing him (he's currently denying there's a
> problem), but JOSM's reverter plugin is giving hundreds of conflicts. This
> damage needs to be undone.

I am not saying my edit was perfect. But the position of the nodes
before my edit was even further off than it is now. The northwest node
is now 10 meters straight south of the monument where it was over 1km
east. The southwest node was off by 1km as well and is now about 400
meters west. At the end of the day, the only reason I felt I could
even make these changes is because the source for the borders in the
US isn't that great to begin with. They are all over-noded. County
borders don't align with state borders. Most of the county borders I
have worked with are visibly off by up to a couple hundred feet.
Apparently in this case I didn't look for the monuments specifically
though. My bad.

I made the map better. I did not make it perfect. And while I did
(apparently mistakenly) use lat/lon values in my work, I did take
other things into consideration. It was not a blind change.

Reverting over 850 objects because I'm off by a few meters is beyond
extreme. I might add that trying to revert such a large changeset
without even waiting for a reply is also somewhat rude. Good thing I'm
a night owl I guess.

Toby

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

Re: [Talk-us] border screwup by ToeBee needs reverting

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 3/25/2011 3:56 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705298412/Four-Corners-marker-212-miles-off-Too-late.html


Note the correction to this article: 
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705299160/Four-Corners-Monument-is-indeed-off-mark.html

I was a little hasty about linking the original.

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

[Talk-us] border screwup by ToeBee needs reverting

[Nathan Edgars II]

User ToeBee has, in several changesets in February, aligned state 
borders to exact lat/long. The problem is that this is not how the 
borders are defined; instead they are based on work that the 19th 
century surveyors did with the tools they had. Two obvious examples follow:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/158796015/history is the famous 
"Four Corners": 
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705298412/Four-Corners-marker-212-miles-off-Too-late.html
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/158790476/history is the 
northwest corner of Colorado, which is also marked by a large monument, 
visible on aerials.


It's likely that any border node moved by ToeBee needs to be reverted. I 
tried to do this after informing him (he's currently denying there's a 
problem), but JOSM's reverter plugin is giving hundreds of conflicts. 
This damage needs to be undone.


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