Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map

2020-09-01 Thread stevea
On Sep 1, 2020, at 2:46 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > 'Private' vs 'public' hits near the mark, but not in the gold. I was trying > to be precise when I said that the property line determines the protected > status and the public access constraints. A public-access nature reserve > operated by an

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map

2020-09-01 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:14 PM stevea wrote: > Here I weigh-in with what I believe to be a crucial distinction between > "cadastral data which are privately owned" and "data which can be > characterized as cadastral, but which are publicly owned and are often used > for recreation, hiking and

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map

2020-09-01 Thread stevea
Here I weigh-in with what I believe to be a crucial distinction between "cadastral data which are privately owned" and "data which can be characterized as cadastral, but which are publicly owned and are often used for recreation, hiking and similar human activities." Joseph, many others in

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map

2020-08-31 Thread stevea
Kevin Kenny wrote: > They're both 'legal' boundaries. (and more). Thank you, Kevin. Finally, this is written in a manner that allows me to understand it and I do now. Whew! THEN, there is how OSM might ultimately remedy this (by specifying — good example wiki diagrams can go miles here —

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map

2020-08-31 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
But the Forest Service itself is showing the outer boundary on it's websites, as I've mentioned above. On the higher resolution web map, there is only a faint difference in lighter green / darker green color to show which land within the official boundary is privately or federally owned, and this

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map

2020-08-31 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 7:11 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I believe there might be an issue with these complex multipolygons which > is preventing osm2pgsql from handling them. Perhaps it is because nodes are > shared between two outer rings? > > However, I also want to note that it is not clear

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map

2020-08-31 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
I believe there might be an issue with these complex multipolygons which is preventing osm2pgsql from handling them. Perhaps it is because nodes are shared between two outer rings? However, I also want to note that it is not clear to me that the new mapping is correct. The new outer boundaries

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map

2020-08-30 Thread Clifford Snow
Paul, I don't have a definitive answer for you, but rendering usually takes a while for large areas. I would expect it to render when zoomed in but wasn't able to see any rendering on a couple of spot checks. I did notice that around islands either the forest or the island, are shifted. I would

[Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map

2020-08-30 Thread Paul White
Hello, I recently added the (super complicated) Superior National Forest boundary to OSM, because I noticed it was missing. However, it refuses to render on the standard map, even though I ran it through JOSM's validator with no problems. (link to relation)