the scope of this series of messages is strictly confined to two
related things: true admin borders which are tied to local government
in a strict sense (that is, there is an actual elected governmental
body) and CDPs which are lumped in as admin_level 8 even
though they do not have elected
first of all, CDPs. there's been an ongoing discussion about whether
they belong in OSM at all, or whether they deserve their admin_level
8 classification. i have mixed feelings about the first, and am pretty
sure we need a new way of classifying them if we keep them. here's
some more fuel for the
Misaligned borders - we have a lot of these
early border imports came from multiple sources, and when they were
done, it was rare to look at other border imports in the vicinity and
clean things up. a good example is along the Hudson River, where
the county borders were from USGS (which were not
i've determined that a lot of the NY/PA border heading west
from the Delaware has issues where no one bothered to break
up and share the ways. and i've seen a lot of early work which
we would now consider mistagged. this all sort of plays together...
the ways in borders should probably not have
On 11/3/2013 10:54 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
i've determined that a lot of the NY/PA border heading west
from the Delaware has issues where no one bothered to break
up and share the ways.
Or, in my case, since I have no access to the accurate and correct
border, and I have no idea where the
On 11/3/13 11:24 AM, Mike N wrote:
On 11/3/2013 10:54 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
i've determined that a lot of the NY/PA border heading west
from the Delaware has issues where no one bothered to break
up and share the ways.
Or, in my case, since I have no access to the accurate and correct
Administrative boundaries are generally not verifiable by ground
surveying, and are not straightforward to edit. This causes
information rot. What good is administrative boundary information that
are not trustworthy? Moreover, they are freely[1] and easily available
from an authoritative source.
On 11/3/13 12:17 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
Administrative boundaries are generally not verifiable by ground
surveying, and are not straightforward to edit. This causes
information rot. What good is administrative boundary information that
are not trustworthy? Moreover, they are freely[1] and
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote:
what i favor is going to a multi layer approach where some
layers of OSM are ground verifiable things and others may
not be. a consumer could choose to use some layers, and
the admin boundaries (which are a real
On 11/3/2013 12:55 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
what i favor is going to a multi layer approach where some
layers of OSM are ground verifiable things and others may
not be. a consumer could choose to use some layers, and
the admin boundaries (which are a real problem) can be
moved and we can
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On 03.11.2013 16:46, Richard Welty wrote:
Misaligned borders - we have a lot of these
This nice example was featured in worst of OSM a while ago and seems
to have been unchanged since:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/36.2642/-95.7297
Bye
On 11/3/13 1:57 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 03.11.2013 16:46, Richard Welty wrote:
Misaligned borders - we have a lot of these
This nice example was featured in worst of OSM a while ago and seems
to have been unchanged since:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/36.2642/-95.7297
that
On 11/3/13 12:17 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
Administrative boundaries are generally not verifiable by ground
surveying, and are not straightforward to edit. This causes
information rot. What good is administrative boundary information that
are not trustworthy? Moreover, they are freely[1]
Hi,
I came across my first NHD imported data set this weekend, in Western MA.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/43638395
It has the following tags.
NHD:ComID = 7711652
NHD:FCode = 39004
NHD:FDate = 1999/09/06
NHD:FTYPE = LakePond
NHD:GNIS_ID = 00212194
NHD:GNIS_Name = Lake Winnemaug
Richard Welty writes:
what i favor is going to a multi layer approach where some
layers of OSM are ground verifiable things and others may
not be.
E.g. the current openstreetmap.org and my suggestion of
closedstreetmap.com.
The difficulty of layers, as it has always been, is keeping them
Agreed that we should not, under no circumstances, just go ahead and
remove data from OSM that has been there for a long time, that people
rely on. And that is not what I am proposing. Really, I am not
proposing anything, I am just stating my opinion that authoritative
data such as boundaries, for
Hi,
For what it is worth, this is an example of a several different
imports ignoring each other rather than a problem specific to admin
boundaries.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/36.2642/-95.7297
that is a good one.
This is the same problem as above.
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 06:26:27PM -0600, Martijn van Exel wrote:
Hey all,
I was looking for more info on Michigan lefts (in particular, how many
are there?) and google offered up this gem here:
18 matches
Mail list logo
