<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I’m uploading a changeset that should fix most of the border problems. Some tagging problems may remain with the parks but it shouldn’t be necessary to adjust the geometry.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I did note that some of the US parks to the south need to be turned into boundary relations and have their ways de-duplicated.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I didn’t really touch the woods because those don’t stop at the border<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Clifford Snow [mailto:clifford@snowandsnow.us] <br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, September 17, 2012 8:16 PM<br><b>To:</b> talk-ca@openstreetmap.org<br><b>Subject:</b> [Talk-ca] (no subject)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I'm doing some work in the Washington State and noticed some problems along the border between BC and Washington State. I asked for help on the talk-us mailing list.<br><br>I originally though the border was incorrect. However, because the border doesn't track exactly along the 49th parallel there appears to be some administrative areas that don't match up with the actual border. See <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.9803&lon=-121.7579&zoom=12&layers=M" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.9803&lon=-121.7579&zoom=12&layers=M</a><br><br><br>Paul Norman wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Paul Norman <<a href="mailto:penorman@mac.com" target="_blank">penorman@mac.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The survey points are based on IBC data (which they view as PD) and are supposed to be accurate within a few cm and the limits of NAD83 to WGS84 conversion (a few more cm).</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I’ve verified a few by the lower mainland with survey and against a few sources of accurate imagery and their data seems accurate within the limits of the imagery.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>You can see a clearing along parts of the border in that area so it’s accurate to within 20 meters.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I know that Washington State argued that they were not responsible for the border costs in Blaine because it was not part of the state since the state ended at the 49<sup>th</sup> parallel and the border is north of the 49<sup>th</sup> there.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>What I’ll do is go and eliminate duplicate border ways, like I did with the lower mainland.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><br clear=all>There is a large multipolygon with a source of "CanVec 6.0 - NRCan" that should probably extend to the border. However I'm not sure. I'm wondering if anyone in Canada could investigate. The area is defined as natural=wood. <br><br>BTW - I'm using USDA National Forest Services Topo Maps to add in rivers, streams, etc. I see streams coming into the US from BC, but we don't have any corresponding stream in Washington.<br><br>Clifford<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>I have promised to cut down on my swearing and drinking, which I have. Unfortunately, this has left me dim-witted and nearly speechless. Adapted from <i>The Lion</i> by Nelson DeMille<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>-or-<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>