Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-10-01 Thread ethnicfoodisgreat
message From: Carl Anderson Date: 9/30/17 11:21 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Brian May Cc: Kevin Kenny , Mark Bradley , talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node ​A little history on GNIS data, and the Board of Geographic Names. The US Board of Geographic Names

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-30 Thread Max Erickson
>One more thing to know about GNIS: entries are never deleted. One minor exception to this is if they determine that a given feature has 2 IDs, one of the IDs will often be removed. Max ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-30 Thread Martijn van Exel
I sense a topic for the next Many Mappy Minutes or a BOF at State of the Map US —> cleaning up old imports. I sure appreciate all the knowledge shared here! So much I didn’t know about GNIS data. Martijn > On Sep 30, 2017, at 11:54 AM, Wolfgang Zenker > wrote: > > * Carl Anderson mailto:carl.

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-30 Thread Wolfgang Zenker
* Carl Anderson [170930 17:21]: > ​A little history on GNIS data, and the Board of Geographic Names. > The US Board of Geographic Names manages names for places and features > shown on US govt maps. They have been using a database to manage the names > across maps and map scales. That database i

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-30 Thread Jesse B. Crawford
I also seem to have observed that, at least in rural New Mexico where I do most of my mapping, GNIS features like historic places seem to have only been entered to the resolution of what town they were in, and then all ended up at something like the centroid of the town or county limits. The result

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-30 Thread Mark Wagner
On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 15:11:06 +0700 Dave Swarthout wrote: > "Second, many entries have their coordinates specified using the old > NAD 27 datum, but somewhere along the line, that fact was lost and the > coordinates were assumed to be in either NAD 83 or WGS 84. This > results in an offset that i

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-30 Thread Brian May
On 9/29/2017 11:06 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Mark Bradley mailto:ethnicfoodisgr...@gmail.com>> wrote: In the course of my mapping in the American Midwest, I have come across several small country churches of GNIS origin that no longer exist.  Often the

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-30 Thread Brian May
On 9/30/2017 3:19 AM, Mark Wagner wrote: Second, many entries have their coordinates specified using the old NAD 27 datum, but somewhere along the line, that fact was lost and the coordinates were assumed to be in either NAD 83 or WGS 84. This results in an offset that increases the further you

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-30 Thread Marc Gemis
> Another point is that if you have the outline for something that GNIS shows > as a node, please conflate! I've done that with a lot of buildings and parks > locally - just copy-and-paste the GNIS tags from the node to the polygon and > then delete the node. The utilsplugin2 [1] for JOSM and it's

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-30 Thread Dave Swarthout
"Second, many entries have their coordinates specified using the old NAD 27 datum, but somewhere along the line, that fact was lost and the coordinates were assumed to be in either NAD 83 or WGS 84. This results in an offset that increases the further you go from central Indiana; the offset in Ala

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-30 Thread Mark Wagner
On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 06:56:31 +0700 Dave Swarthout wrote: > Glad you mentioned that GNIS import, Ian. > > This isn't a pressing issue but I've been doing considerable mapping > in Alaska and encounter GNIS features constantly. Many of them are > nodes and refer to mines, usually abandoned mines,

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-29 Thread John F. Eldredge
On 9/29/2017 9:59 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: On 9/29/2017 8:31 PM, Max Erickson wrote: Yeah, a Google search for "Mill Creek Church nashville" has http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nashvillearchives/millcreek.html as an early result. It says the church building has been disma

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-29 Thread Max Erickson
There's a fair chance that a GNIS location is off by a couple miles. A little bit more information from GNIS is available by putting the ID into https://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/ It lists "Mill Creek Baptist Church" as a variant name. From time to time I come across a GNIS entry that is o

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-29 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Mark Bradley wrote: > > In the course of my mapping in the American Midwest, I have come across > several small country churches of GNIS origin that no longer exist. Often > there will be a nearby cemetery, but the church facility is gone. I simply > delete the

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-29 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Ed Hillsman wrote: > In my mapping in Albuquerque, I have come across a number of GNIS nodes > tagged as churches or schools, in built-up areas, that I am unable to find > on the ground anywhere near the coordinates. I’ve researched a few of them > and found that

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-29 Thread John F. Eldredge
On 9/29/2017 8:31 PM, Max Erickson wrote: Yeah, a Google search for "Mill Creek Church nashville" has http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nashvillearchives/millcreek.html as an early result. It says the church building has been dismantled but mentions a cemetery, which still exists

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-29 Thread Mark Bradley
> Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 18:26:49 -0500 > From: "John F. Eldredge" > To: OpenStreetMap Talk-US Mailing List > Subject: [Talk-us] dubious church node > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > OSM Item 356845407 is a node supposedly marking the locati

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-29 Thread Max Erickson
Yeah, a Google search for "Mill Creek Church nashville" has http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nashvillearchives/millcreek.html as an early result. It says the church building has been dismantled but mentions a cemetery, which still exists nearby the mislocated osm node: http://www.

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-29 Thread Ed Hillsman
In my mapping in Albuquerque, I have come across a number of GNIS nodes tagged as churches or schools, in built-up areas, that I am unable to find on the ground anywhere near the coordinates. I’ve researched a few of them and found that they did exist at one time or another but have been demolis

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-29 Thread Dave Swarthout
Glad you mentioned that GNIS import, Ian. This isn't a pressing issue but I've been doing considerable mapping in Alaska and encounter GNIS features constantly. Many of them are nodes and refer to mines, usually abandoned mines, and contain tagging that JOSM complains about, for example, using lan

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-29 Thread Martijn van Exel
If you are interested in cleaning up some of the GNIS imported features in a more structured manner, we can create a MapRoulette challenge. In fact, there is one already that we can model more of them after. Give it a try: http://maproulette.org/map/2774 Martijn

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-29 Thread Ian Dees
The history of the node shows that I created it 8 years ago: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/356845407/history The gnis tags indicate that it probably came in from my (somewhat misguided) GNIS import back then. If there's no recent information to corroborate the node then feel free to delete it