[Imports] [Talk-us] MA towns
Andrew S. J. Sawyer
assawyer at gmail.com
Thu Oct 20 16:46:45 UTC 2011
Great work Calvin, regarding the coastline you may want to check to see if
it is the average high water mark which is used for the
just a heads up. When I can, I'll lend my help to the NH/Mass border, etc.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:26, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) <
calvin.metcalf at state.ma.us> wrote:
> All right so http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37626989/admin.zip
> It retags all ways that make up counties to be admin_level=6;8
> It adds a way with admin_level=8 and boundary=administrative to any town
> boarder that currently doesn't have one
> All ways are non overlapping and are split based on where they need to be
> so that the same way can be used for both towns on the boarder
> To do once this is done
> -Redo the ways that make up both the ma outside boarder and the ma counties
> boarders. So that they are they are shared and not overlapping.
> -check out the coastline and see if it makes sense to replace it with the
> massgis one (it is probably going to be more accurate, the new boarders are
> significantly better then the old ones)
> -Start create relations for all the towns.
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) [mailto:calvin.metcalf at state.ma.us]
> >Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 10:09 AM
> >To: 'Richard Weait'
> >Cc: imports at openstreetmap.org; talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> >Subject: Re: [Imports] [Talk-us] MA towns
> >So I did do that with stow as a test, I deleted the current
> >boarder added the new one, turned it into a relation, and
> >merged each of the overlapping county boarders into it.
> >What I intended to do was to import admin data only where
> >there was not already existing data, but didn't notice that a
> >few of the counties were only tagged as admin=6 in the
> >relation but not in the underlying ways.
> >So what I can do is go through and take those out and then
> >edit the ways that make up those relations to add the correct
> >tags to the way.
> >A thing to point out is that with the exception of the
> >counties (which are a bit of a mess as it looks like whoever
> >uploaded them used polygons, so there are double ways at each
> >border.) There is not much of the internal boundaries in ma
> >already, and I'm hoping these new one will make it
> >significantly easier for people to edit and add boundary
> >relations for their own towns.
> >Does that make sense ?
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Richard Weait [mailto:richard at weait.com]
> >>Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 9:50 AM
> >>To: Metcalf, Calvin
> >>Cc: talk-us at openstreetmap.org; imports at openstreetmap.org
> >>Subject: Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] MA towns
> >>On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT)
> >><calvin.metcalf at state.ma.us> wrote:
> >>> If nobody objects I'll start uploading the towns from the
> >>admin8 file and stow file
> >>Dear Calvin,
> >>I have an objection and a suggestion. See below.
> >>> I noticed that a couple of the counties are only relations
> >>(i.e. the ways aren't tagged admin_level=6) so no lines are
> >>going to go in there.
> >>I'm not sure I understand what you say here. Are you saying that some
> >>admin areas are only tagged on the relations? Are you also saying you
> >>object to such tagging only on the relations? Or are you saying that
> >>you won't upload into areas that are tagged only on the relations?
> >>> With this done all borders in Mass will be represented by a
> >>tagged way, if that looks good I can put in the new counties
> >>and state boarder files that don't include any overlaps.
> >>I believe that this thread (perhaps the other threads on the same
> >>topic) has established that MA borders are sub-optimal. Those borders
> >>are from various imported sources. Those imported sources disagree
> >>with each other as shown by crossings and parallel borders where they
> >>should be a shared line.
> >>My objection is this. Importing state wide data from yet another
> >>source without addressing the existing border weaknesses will make the
> >>MA border condition worse, not better.
> >>My suggestion is this. Please consider _editing_, not _importing_,
> >>these town boundaries in a way that greatly improves MA borders. Work
> >>in very small areas at one time and touch each way individually, by
> >>hand. Reconcile the new town borders with the existing county / state
> >>borders and improve those as you go. Use a single way where
> >>inappropriate duplicates now exist, and add the way to each of the
> >>appropriate border relations.
> >>Starting with Stow, (is this the right Stow?)
> >>you might decide that the existing town border is correct-enough, then
> >>merge the Worcester / Middlesex border to the town line where they are
> >>expected to overlap. Refer to other sources, perhaps aerial imagery,
> >>at the same time and you'll have the opportunity to fix other problems
> >>in / around Stow as well. Then do a couple of the adjacent towns as
> >>well. Adjacent towns should be easier because you'll have already
> >>sorted out one of the shared borders.
> >>Yes, this sounds like a lot of work. Yes, this is slower than just
> >>throwing the import data over the garden wall. But. Do this and show
> >>us a before and after screenshot with the beautiful, improved MA
> >>borders. Do this and provide these lists with the details of your
> >>workflow and any helpful tricks and troublesome traps. Do this and
> >>perhaps you'll have other MA mappers flocking to assist in the great
> >>MA border cleanup. You can make the MA borders and the cleanup
> >>process an example for other areas sharing the same border
> >>Best regards,
> >Imports mailing list
> >Imports at openstreetmap.org
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Imports