<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div><span>It seems to me that the provincial boundary should be displaced from the coast of the Island of Newfoundland by 3 NM. Is there a tool one can use to do that?<br></span></div><div> </div><div>- David E. Nelson</div><div style="display: block;" class="yahoo_quoted"> <br> <br> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> On Sunday, January 12, 2014 8:00:21 PM, Richard Weait <richard@weait.com> wrote:<br> </font> </div> <div class="y_msg_container">On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Adam Martin <<a shape="rect"
ymailto="mailto:s.adam.martin@gmail.com" href="mailto:s.adam.martin@gmail.com">s.adam.martin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br clear="none">> Hello!<br clear="none"><br clear="none">> Is this supposed to be the actual maritime boundary? I don't think it is -<br clear="none">> the parts of the line appears to be for the Provincial boundary. If it is<br clear="none">> the Provincial boundary, shouldn't it follow the coastal boundary?<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> If I am mistaken, let me know.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">I don't think that you are mistaken, but I don't think you have all of<br clear="none">the facts either.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">The 12NM line does look to be one that was created automatically. It<br clear="none">certainly wasn't surveyed by a local mapper. :-) Same for the inland<br clear="none">"maritime boundary". I looked at that one in more detail. Here's<br
clear="none">what I see going on.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">The boundary way is this one<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30114485" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30114485</a><br clear="none"><br clear="none">It is also part of two relations. One relation is a civil boundary,<br clear="none">the other is an administrative (provincial)<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Boundary ways can not be understood fully, or edited wisely, without<br clear="none">understanding relations. I wouldn't edit any complex form, such as a<br clear="none">boundary relation, with an editor other than JOSM. And not with any<br clear="none">editor, on a mobile device.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Today, the way appears badly drawn, and incomplete in tagging. I'll<br clear="none">take a few guesses at why.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">The history of that way shows 28
revisions. The first one was the<br clear="none">creation of the way, as an import from geobase in 2009. It was tagged<br clear="none">as an administrative boundary (not a maritime boundary). Likely, this<br clear="none">was the best data available to us at the time. With the currently<br clear="none">available imagery, we can see that the imported boundary does not<br clear="none">align with imagery, nor does it reflect some of the details in the<br clear="none">current imagery.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Revisions 2 through 25 have been redacted, due to edits by users who<br clear="none">did not agree to the license change. The boundary may have had some<br clear="none">improvements and corrections through those edits. Improved or<br clear="none">otherwise, those edits are gone.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Revision 26 shows that the redaction bot cleaned out the data that we<br clear="none">were no longer
entitled to keep. That left the way without tags.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">R27 in 2012 appears not to have directly affected the way. It may have<br clear="none">edited an intersecting way? It was a large changeset.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">R28 in 2013 added the maritime tag you report. The maritime tag alone,<br clear="none">is an unusual form. I don't think that it would be considered<br clear="none">complete, unless combined with the tags of the parent relations.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">When compared with the 'bot-drawn 12nm maritime boundary, this way<br clear="none">appears to be incorrect. It just doesn't seem to be far enough<br clear="none">offshore to be a maritime boundary.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">When compared to <a shape="rect" href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/115038287" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/115038287 </a>(from<br clear="none">2011, and a canvec
import) the '485 way appears "low resolution and<br clear="none">poorly aligned".<br clear="none"><br clear="none">So there are are multiple imported boundaries here. Each were the<br clear="none">probably best available at the time. Neither are perfect, and now the<br clear="none">appear to somewhat duplicate each other, given the parent relations of<br clear="none">'485.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Hope that helps a bit.<div class="yqt6799281561" id="yqtfd43859"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">Talk-ca mailing list<br clear="none"><a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a><br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a><br clear="none"></div><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div>
</div></body></html>