<div dir="ltr"><div>Sorry, Greg, I could have explained in more clearly.</div><div>Here is an example of a border between Newton and Watertown:<br></div><div>The way (<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/142866017">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/142866017</a>) is the border between Newton and Watertown and this way is, essentially, a duplicate of the Charles River stream. Wikipedia says "From Watertown to Waltham to Needham and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedham,_Massachusetts" title="Dedham, Massachusetts">Dedham</a>, Newton is bounded by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_River" title="Charles River">Charles River</a>." (this is also confirmed by town's GIS maps, but it would be great if anyone could direct me to a formal document that says something like "the border between Newton and Watertown goes along the middle of the Charles River") -- so, almost certainly, the river itself is the border and if its stream changes so does the border. Thus, I suggest excluding the way (<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/142866017">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/142866017</a>) from the border relations for Newton and Watertown and including the corresponding part of the Charles River instead. This will help to solve, besides removing duplicate ways, the above mentioned problem of when the stream changes, so should the border as well.<br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 7:03 AM <<a href="mailto:talk-us-massachusetts-request@openstreetmap.org">talk-us-massachusetts-request@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Send Talk-us-massachusetts mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:talk-us-massachusetts-request@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">talk-us-massachusetts-request@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:talk-us-massachusetts-owner@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">talk-us-massachusetts-owner@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of Talk-us-massachusetts digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Towns' borders along rivers (Yury Yatsynovich)<br>
2. Re: Towns' borders along rivers (Greg Troxel)<br>
3. Re: Towns' borders along rivers (Wayne Emerson, Jr.)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 17:24:14 -0400<br>
From: Yury Yatsynovich <<a href="mailto:yury.yatsynovich@gmail.com" target="_blank">yury.yatsynovich@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: OSM Massachusetts <<a href="mailto:talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
Subject: [Talk-us-massachusetts] Towns' borders along rivers<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAJbo8cHUR+CdK5yjR9VFQFXGEhtDddg10uVKPonyo7T=<a href="mailto:HBhGxg@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">HBhGxg@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Hi!<br>
I was wondering if everybody is comfortable about aligning towns' borders<br>
with the waterways (where the borders actually go along the waterways) and<br>
removing the redundant ways with tags "boundary=administrative",<br>
"admin_level=X" that currently serve as segments of borders?<br>
For instance, I did it this way here:<br>
<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/809321106" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/809321106</a><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Yury Yatsynovich<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20200528/31898eac/attachment-0001.htm" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20200528/31898eac/attachment-0001.htm</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 20:09:58 -0400<br>
From: Greg Troxel <<a href="mailto:gdt@lexort.com" target="_blank">gdt@lexort.com</a>><br>
To: Yury Yatsynovich <<a href="mailto:yury.yatsynovich@gmail.com" target="_blank">yury.yatsynovich@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: OSM Massachusetts <<a href="mailto:talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us-massachusetts] Towns' borders along rivers<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:rmio8q7k3e1.fsf@s1.lexort.com" target="_blank">rmio8q7k3e1.fsf@s1.lexort.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain<br>
<br>
Yury Yatsynovich <<a href="mailto:yury.yatsynovich@gmail.com" target="_blank">yury.yatsynovich@gmail.com</a>> writes:<br>
<br>
> I was wondering if everybody is comfortable about aligning towns' borders<br>
> with the waterways (where the borders actually go along the waterways) and<br>
> removing the redundant ways with tags "boundary=administrative",<br>
> "admin_level=X" that currently serve as segments of borders?<br>
> For instance, I did it this way here:<br>
> <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/809321106" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/809321106</a><br>
<br>
I am not at all comfortable with this, at least without really<br>
understanding.<br>
<br>
Are you talking about a place where there is a statute that says that<br>
the boundary is the middle of some waterway, even if the waterway moves<br>
over time? What exactly do you mean by "the borders actually go along<br>
the waterways"? Can you provide a link to statute or some authoritatie<br>
source?<br>
<br>
How does such an aligned border compare to the MassGIS Towns Survey<br>
layer?<br>
<br>
<br>
I don't follow what you mean about "removing redundant ways". Do you<br>
mean making the boundary into a relation? I am guessing you mean using<br>
a river way instead of a boundary way for that part of the relation?<br>
That doesn't seem intrinsically problematic if the boundary is really<br>
defined to dynamically follow the centerline of the waterway even if the<br>
waterway moves.<br>
<br>
<br>
Or do you mean "when the town boundary is specified by coordinate in<br>
statute, and that line is close to the middle of a waterway that also<br>
has defined edges, should we move the middle of the waterway to be the<br>
coordinates on record as the border?" If so, I don't see how this is<br>
robust against people thinking it's ok to move the waterway around to a<br>
way that seems better from the water point of view, with collateral<br>
damage of moving the boundary.<br>
<br>
In the case of Hudson/Stow, it more or less goes (for part of it) along<br>
what sort of seems like the middle (ish) of Lake Boon. But the boundary<br>
is NOT defined by any notion of middle of the wear; it is defined by<br>
statue (1978?) that specifies coordinates. Certainly those were chosen<br>
to be in the middleish, but if the lake moves, the boundary does not.<br>
This is a lake not a river, so there is no centerline, and your quesiton<br>
doesn't apply.<br>
<br>
In your case of what looks like waltham/weston, what is the legal<br>
definition of the boundary and how is it anchored?<br>
<br>
My next questions is why is there a water type line in the middle of a<br>
reservoir, which doesn't seem to be a river.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 20:19:31 -0400<br>
From: "Wayne Emerson, Jr." <<a href="mailto:ibemerson@verizon.net" target="_blank">ibemerson@verizon.net</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us-massachusetts] Towns' borders along rivers<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:336c296b-7e48-6ad3-8506-41958b931525@verizon.net" target="_blank">336c296b-7e48-6ad3-8506-41958b931525@verizon.net</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"<br>
<br>
I try to make separate ways for the river & the admin boundary. People <br>
tend to move the rivers around and when a river is also an admin <br>
boundary there is no visual difference in iD. (I mentioned this (as <br>
Thorwynn) in an issue with iD (initially unrelated) but they ignored <br>
it.) <a href="https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6162" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6162</a><br>
(It turned into a long discussion about admin boundaries also being <br>
other things)<br>
<br>
Someone in that thread quoted the wiki : "Avoid connecting boundaries to <br>
physical features like woods or rivers. Sooner or later these features <br>
change in reality and get updated in OSM – but usually the shape of the <br>
boundary remains. An exception is if the boundary is legally defined to <br>
be the physical feature."<br>
It seemed most in the thread agreed with this. In my experience the <br>
official boundaries from MassGIS don't always align with the river <br>
center or thalweg, and especially in marshy river areas I have found <br>
that rivers-as-admin borders have been moved far from the official line.<br>
<br>
I have always made sure the "boundary=administrative", "admin_level=X" <br>
were on the ways. (only a few were missing them) I know others think <br>
they are not needed, but the tags are already there and make it easy for <br>
a mapper to distinguish what type of boundary it is.<br>
<br>
-Wayne<br>
<br>
On 5/28/2020 5:24 PM, Yury Yatsynovich wrote:<br>
> Hi!<br>
> I was wondering if everybody is comfortable about aligning towns' <br>
> borders with the waterways (where the borders actually go along the <br>
> waterways) and removing the redundant ways with tags <br>
> "boundary=administrative", "admin_level=X" that currently serve as <br>
> segments of borders?<br>
> For instance, I did it this way here:<br>
> <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/809321106" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/809321106</a><br>
><br>
> -- <br>
> Yury Yatsynovich<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Talk-us-massachusetts mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts</a><br>
<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20200528/d5e40ea7/attachment-0001.htm" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20200528/d5e40ea7/attachment-0001.htm</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-us-massachusetts mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of Talk-us-massachusetts Digest, Vol 44, Issue 1<br>
****************************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">Yury Yatsynovich</div>