[OSM-talk-be] Mapping of Boundary
Luc Van den Troost
luc.antw at gmail.com
Sun Dec 5 10:12:26 GMT 2010
A lot of municipality borders follow the course of rivers,... as they were
when the borders were fixed. A lot of small rivers have been modernised for
the first time during the 1840-1860 time. Curves have been removed, and so
on... That was well after the fixing of the borders. So in a lot of cases
rivers do not follow the municipality borders anymore...
In some occasions the borders have been re-fixed to the natural border
(river) during the +/- 1970 time of municipality-fusions, where they
It might be wise to have a 'sneak view' on some other source to check what
is the case in Ramsel/Westmeerbeek...
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Maarten Deen <mdeen at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Kenny Moens wrote:
>> Hello guys,
>> In the region where I live (Hulshout), some of the borders are recently
>> mapped, but they don't follow the exact features which form the border. For
>> example, in the area between Ramsel and Westmeerbeek the city border follows
>> the "Steenkensbeek" which I recently mapped based on Bing data, if I look at
>> the border itself it has much less points and more-or-less follows the
>> stream, but not exactly as it should be.
>> How is the best way to correct this?
>> * Splitting the border and adding the tags/relations of the border
>> to the stream. Which would mean the line of the stream would both
>> represent the border and the stream itself.
>> * Glueing all points of the border towards the stream, so that they
>> form a single line (but are effectively still two separate lines).
>> * Or something else.
> I don't know if Mapnik renders relations, but if it does, than 1 seems a
> good idea. But then you have to take care then when the stream is moved
> (physically) the border does not have to move.
> 2 is done in most cases.
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-be