On 05/11/2015 08:37 PM, stevea wrote:
Re: [Talk-us] New York, Ellis Island Boundary
Jim McAndrew writes:
This is correct, the island is part of NY, but the water is part of
NJ, when they made the island bigger, the new land was in NJ.
Similar to how Delaware has the entire Delaware Bay in
Jim McAndrew writes:
This is correct, the island is part of NY, but the water is part of
NJ, when they made the island bigger, the new land was in NJ.
Similar to how Delaware has the entire Delaware Bay in its
boundaries. They added some fill to the NJ side, and now there's a
piece of Delawa
Hi,
On 05/10/2015 06:35 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
> Possibly useful context:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._New_York
That's one of the things that makes me love this hobby/profession so
much. Quirks!
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°2
On 5/11/15 11:55 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> I agree, the historical boundary should be removed, but we need to be
> sure to show what's in what state. It's quite a little mess.
>
>
i think the only problem is that the word historical is there. deleting
the tags on the way would be sufficient. th
I agree, the historical boundary should be removed, but we need to be
sure to show what's in what state. It's quite a little mess.
- Serge
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>puzzled about
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37573502#map=18/40.69986/-74.03910
>
>
This is correct, the island is part of NY, but the water is part of NJ,
when they made the island bigger, the new land was in NJ.
Similar to how Delaware has the entire Delaware Bay in its boundaries. They
added some fill to the NJ side, and now there's a piece of Delaware
connected to New Jersey:
Possibly useful context:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._New_York
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 9:30 AM Richard Welty
wrote:
> On 5/10/15 11:57 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
> > On 5/10/15 11:31 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>puzzled about
> >>
> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/
On 5/10/15 11:57 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
> On 5/10/15 11:31 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>puzzled about
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37573502#map=18/40.69986/-74.03910
>>
>> is this really part of today's political boundary, then "(historical)"
>> should perhaps be removed fro
On 5/10/15 11:31 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>puzzled about
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37573502#map=18/40.69986/-74.03910
>
> is this really part of today's political boundary, then "(historical)"
> should perhaps be removed from the name. And is there any significance
> to the f
Hi,
puzzled about
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37573502#map=18/40.69986/-74.03910
is this really part of today's political boundary, then "(historical)"
should perhaps be removed from the name. And is there any significance
to the funny shape (an owl sitting on a branch?) or should it rat
10 matches
Mail list logo
