Re: [Talk-us] what happened to Sacramento?

[Richard Welty]

On 9/30/15 12:47 PM, Ray Kiddy wrote:
> Wow. I have not gotten to the point, in my mapping adventures, where I
> have had to look at changesets like this. A new thing to learn.
>
> Thanks for the reverts. I will get to fixing the rest of that soon.
>
>
you may want to look to newer TIGER boundary data as it does change
over time. 2014 City boundaries for California may be found here, already
converted into useful forms:

GeoJSON:
https://github.com/boundaryissues/TIGER2014/blob/master/place/CA/tl_2014_06_place-25.geojson

Shapefiles:
https://github.com/boundaryissues/TIGER2014/blob/master/place/CA/tl_2014_06_place-25.zip

richard
-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] what happened to Sacramento?

[Ray Kiddy]

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 22:12:52 + (UTC)
Minh Nguyen  wrote:

> Jack Burke  writes:
> 
> > 
> > You're not crazy. Just using the regular OSM website interface, I
> > can find
> the city node, and the county boundary, but not a city boundary.
> AFAICT, it isn't a consolidated city-County, so it should exist. 
> 
> Looks like the original TIGER boundary way got deleted back in 2010,
> and I can't find any traces of ways that superseded it:
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/4084221
> 
> As a first step, I undeleted that way using Potlatch 1:
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33135846
> 
> Now it needs to be turned into a relation and integrated with the
> adjacent boundary ways.
> 

Wow. I have not gotten to the point, in my mapping adventures, where I
have had to look at changesets like this. A new thing to learn.

Thanks for the reverts. I will get to fixing the rest of that soon.

thanx - ray

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

Re: [Talk-us] what happened to Sacramento?

[Minh Nguyen]

Jack Burke  writes:

> 
> You're not crazy. Just using the regular OSM website interface, I can find
the city node, and the county boundary, but not a city boundary. AFAICT, it
isn't a consolidated city-County, so it should exist. 

Looks like the original TIGER boundary way got deleted back in 2010, and I
can't find any traces of ways that superseded it:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/4084221

As a first step, I undeleted that way using Potlatch 1:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33135846

Now it needs to be turned into a relation and integrated with the adjacent
boundary ways.

-- 
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us


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

Re: [Talk-us] what happened to Sacramento?

[Jack Burke]

You're not crazy. Just using the regular OSM website interface, I can find the 
city node, and the county boundary, but not a city boundary. AFAICT, it isn't a 
consolidated city-County, so it should exist. 

-jack


On September 29, 2015 5:10:25 PM EDT, Ray Kiddy  wrote:
>
>I have been fixing up boundaries of cities in California and I have
>found something odd.
>
>Where is the city of Sacramento?
>
>There is a city there. There is a county. The county boundaries are at
>http://openstreetmap.org/relation/396460 and that all looks good. And
>it is not a county/city hybrid thing like San Francisco. Yes? And I can
>find the cities of West Sacramento, Rancho Cordova and others nearby,
>But I cannot find boundaries for the actual city of Sacramento. Google
>has boundaries for it, but OSM does not?
>
>Or is there some way I should be finding it that I am not doing? I
>guess it could be mis-spelled.
>
>I am going to the area around the county in
>http://overpass-turbo.eu/ and doing this search:
>
>[out:json][timeout:360];
>(
>relation["name"="Sacramento"]({{bbox}});
>way["name"="Sacramento"]({{bbox}});
>node["name"="Sacramento"]({{bbox}});
>);
>out body;
>>;
>out skel qt;
>
>It finds lot of stuff, but no city. Any ideas?
>
>cheers - ray
>
>
>
>___
>Talk-us mailing list
>Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

-- 
Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology. ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] what happened to Sacramento?

[Ray Kiddy]

I have been fixing up boundaries of cities in California and I have
found something odd.

Where is the city of Sacramento?

There is a city there. There is a county. The county boundaries are at
http://openstreetmap.org/relation/396460 and that all looks good. And
it is not a county/city hybrid thing like San Francisco. Yes? And I can
find the cities of West Sacramento, Rancho Cordova and others nearby,
But I cannot find boundaries for the actual city of Sacramento. Google
has boundaries for it, but OSM does not?

Or is there some way I should be finding it that I am not doing? I
guess it could be mis-spelled.

I am going to the area around the county in
http://overpass-turbo.eu/ and doing this search:

[out:json][timeout:360];
(
relation["name"="Sacramento"]({{bbox}});
way["name"="Sacramento"]({{bbox}});
node["name"="Sacramento"]({{bbox}});
);
out body;
>;
out skel qt;

It finds lot of stuff, but no city. Any ideas?

cheers - ray



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

Re: [Talk-us] what happened to Sacramento?

[Steven Johnson]

I just like the surprise way in which the issue was resolved. Good work all
around!

-- SEJ
-- twitter: @geomantic
-- skype: sejohnson8

There are two types of people in the world. Those that can extrapolate from
incomplete data.

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Minh Nguyen 
wrote:

> Jack Burke  writes:
>
> >
> > You're not crazy. Just using the regular OSM website interface, I can
> find
> the city node, and the county boundary, but not a city boundary. AFAICT, it
> isn't a consolidated city-County, so it should exist.
>
> Looks like the original TIGER boundary way got deleted back in 2010, and I
> can't find any traces of ways that superseded it:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/4084221
>
> As a first step, I undeleted that way using Potlatch 1:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33135846
>
> Now it needs to be turned into a relation and integrated with the adjacent
> boundary ways.
>
> --
> m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us