[Talk-us-massachusetts] Talk-us-massachusetts Digest, Vol 45, Issue 3
Yury Yatsynovich
yury.yatsynovich at gmail.com
Wed Jun 3 15:17:59 UTC 2020
OK, if I can not touch MassGIS imported borders to align them with rivers,
what about aligning rivers (on their particular segments) with borders?:)
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 8:10 AM <
talk-us-massachusetts-request at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> Send Talk-us-massachusetts mailing list submissions to
> talk-us-massachusetts at openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-us-massachusetts-request at openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-us-massachusetts-owner at openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-us-massachusetts digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Talk-us-massachusetts Digest, Vol 45, Issue 2
> (Yury Yatsynovich)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 08:09:15 -0400
> From: Yury Yatsynovich <yury.yatsynovich at gmail.com>
> To: OSM Massachusetts <talk-us-massachusetts at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us-massachusetts] Talk-us-massachusetts Digest, Vol
> 45, Issue 2
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAJbo8cHt+7ZxUaoJzMatkTkdaKsufDmseUiLLfZuxM08XP_8KQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Greetings!
>
> I was including rivers only in those sections of boundaries where MassGIS
> explicitly indicates that the boundaries go along the rivers. I also
> replace rivers' geometry with that of a boundary, if a boundary looks more
> precise. I skipped some cases where the river's stream has been recently
> modified due to construction (e.g. near exits 11 on I-95) as one needs to
> double-check if towns' borders were adjusted in line with the river.
>
> All towns' boundaries are mapped as relations, so what's wrong if some
> rivers are included in these relations especially if the laws explicitly
> say that rivers are parts of these relations? Shouldn't the map be accurate
> and show where rivers&borders coincide?
>
> In addition, although, MassGIS boundaries are of very fine quality, why OSM
> should be a clone of MassGIS? If a river/border section in OSM is mapped in
> finer details, why should the priority be given to a coarser geometry
> imported from MassGIS?
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020, 7:03 AM <
> talk-us-massachusetts-request at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> > Send Talk-us-massachusetts mailing list submissions to
> > talk-us-massachusetts at openstreetmap.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > talk-us-massachusetts-request at openstreetmap.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > talk-us-massachusetts-owner at openstreetmap.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Talk-us-massachusetts digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> > 1. Re: Towns' borders along rivers (Wayne Emerson, Jr.)
> > 2. Re: Towns' borders along rivers (Greg Troxel)
> > 3. Re: Towns' borders along rivers (Greg Troxel)
> > 4. Re: Town boundaries redux - was Re: Talk-us-massachusetts
> > Digest, (Greg Troxel)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 15:55:13 -0400
> > From: "Wayne Emerson, Jr." <ibemerson at verizon.net>
> > To: talk-us-massachusetts at openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us-massachusetts] Towns' borders along rivers
> > Message-ID: <a4727de0-ab0e-aef4-7887-34934bf3b17b at verizon.net>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> >
> > On 5/29/2020 10:40 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> > > I think this needs research into authoriative evidence before doing it.
> > > Absent that, I think our borders should follow the "towns survey" point
> > > layer from massgis.
> >
> > After the latest MassGIS community boundaries were released last Sept.,
> > I began to use this dataset to slowly upgrade the townlines for the
> > entire state, one line at a time, using JOSM's plugin to "replace
> > geometry." I finally finished this task this morning. This same morning
> > Yuri Yatsynovich has begun deleting & replacing, or altering the course
> > of many town and county borders that fall on rivers. There was no
> > consensus for this.
> >
> > Also last fall the consensus seemed to be that overlapping polygons were
> > preferable to multipolygons, so it would be undesireable to chop up an
> > admin boundary to make conservation multipolygons out of them:
> >
> >
> >
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/2019-October/000542.html
> >
> > Yuri's changesets:
> >
> >
> >
> https://osmcha.org/changesets/86095132?filters=%7B%22date__gte%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22%22%7D%5D%2C%22users%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22Yury%20Yatsynovich%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22Yury%20Yatsynovich%22%7D%5D%7D
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 18:00:11 -0400
> > From: Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com>
> > To: "Wayne Emerson\, Jr. via Talk-us-massachusetts"
> > <talk-us-massachusetts at openstreetmap.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us-massachusetts] Towns' borders along rivers
> > Message-ID: <rmi4krtcems.fsf at s1.lexort.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain
> >
> > "Wayne Emerson, Jr. via Talk-us-massachusetts"
> > <talk-us-massachusetts at openstreetmap.org> writes:
> >
> > > On 5/29/2020 10:40 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> > >> I think this needs research into authoriative evidence before doing
> it.
> > >> Absent that, I think our borders should follow the "towns survey"
> point
> > >> layer from massgis.
> > >
> > > After the latest MassGIS community boundaries were released last
> > > Sept., I began to use this dataset to slowly upgrade the townlines for
> > > the entire state, one line at a time, using JOSM's plugin to "replace
> > > geometry." I finally finished this task this morning. This same
> > > morning Yuri Yatsynovich has begun deleting & replacing, or altering
> > > the course of many town and county borders that fall on rivers. There
> > > was no consensus for this.
> >
> > I think what you are doing about MassGIS data is the right thing.
> >
> > Yuri: it seems clear that there is no consensus to do what you are
> > doing. From the comments on the list, and also my historical
> > impressions of views, you are the only one who thinks what you are doing
> > is ok. In my view, doing this unilaterally borders on vandalism.
> > Please stop.
> >
> >
> > There's another issue about rivers as boundaries. Just because a
> > statute says that a river centerline (which in MA seems to be the
> > midpoint of the banks when the water is at normal levels - this
> > definition varies from state to state), doesn't mean that if some mapper
> > looks at aerial imagery and moves the centerline to look better that
> > this is a good place to put the boundary. It seems obvious from having
> > dealt with these issues that the process of deciding on a town boundary
> > from river changes is complicated, and reasonable to assume it involves
> > some combination of a surveyor or other such licensed professional as
> > well as agreement of the selectboards of the two towns, and that the
> > results of any such discussion/agreement would be documented by
> > coordinates. And then, the MassGIS towns layer would be updated.
> >
> > Which is a long way of saying that the town boundary representation in
> > OSM should be what's in the MassGIS database, absent a particular reason
> > with detailed rationale, probably backed up by discussion with both town
> > governments.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 18:03:23 -0400
> > From: Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com>
> > To: "Wayne Emerson\, Jr. via Talk-us-massachusetts"
> > <talk-us-massachusetts at openstreetmap.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us-massachusetts] Towns' borders along rivers
> > Message-ID: <rmiwo4pazx0.fsf at s1.lexort.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain
> >
> > Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> writes:
> >
> > > Yuri: it seems clear that there is no consensus to do what you are
> >
> > I copied a mispelling; should be Yury. Apologies!
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 20:27:25 -0400
> > From: Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com>
> > To: Bill Ricker <bill.n1vux at gmail.com>
> > Cc: OSM Massachusetts <talk-us-massachusetts at openstreetmap.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us-massachusetts] Town boundaries redux - was Re:
> > Talk-us-massachusetts Digest,
> > Message-ID: <rmiftbdat8y.fsf at s1.lexort.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> >
> > Bill Ricker <bill.n1vux at gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > Those ATLASes are good reading.
> > > They are the Bible for the circumambulate the bounds exercise for each
> > > town/city.
> > > I've downloaded a bunch of them.
> > >
> > > Warning on data: the latitude longitude and state X-Y posits listed in
> > > those were referenced to an antique geode and datum and can NOT be
> > directly
> > > used. AFAIK.
> >
> > This is a really good question, and a friend and I dug into it in 2000
> > (before OSM existed) and I just looked at my notes.
> >
> > Bottom line up front: I believe that someone has transformed the atlas
> > coordinates into NAD83 for the towns survey points layer, even if it's
> > been lost track of how and who. There is or has been a "state
> > geodesist" which I think was in MassDOT* that I speculate would have
> > helped.
> >
> > *That seems odd at first glance, but it's really MassDOT that is
> > concerned with cm-level positioning (and MassDOT runs MaCORS).
> >
> >
> > The basic version of the story about town corner coordinates is that the
> > coordinates in early legislation and I believe in the Atlases are in
> > something called the "New England Datum", which was adopted in 1879/1880
> > by the USCGS as their first datum. As triangulation networks extended,
> > they were added on (but without a readjustment, and hence coordinates in
> > MA remaining fixed) and was renamed to the United States Standard Datum
> > of 1901 and then the North American Datum (of 1913) when Canada and
> > Mexico joined. Then, there was a general readjustment in 1927, but most
> > coordinates didn't change much. Of course the adjustment of NAD83 was a
> > big change around here.
> >
> > So, it's mostly fair to just treat the old coordinates as USSD, and
> > somewhat less fair as NAD27.
> >
> > My friend wrote to NGS, and heard back. I don't want to forward private
> > mail, but if you are a US geodesy nerd and have read a lot of NGS
> > publications you would instantly recognize the person writing back as
> > among the most qualified to answer any question like this.
> >
> > The NGS person looked up records and found stations sort of near Stow
> > (~20 and ~30 miles) for which there were both New England Datum and
> > NAD83 coordinates, and said that based on those the transform from the
> > New England Datum to NAD 83 (1996) is:
> >
> > Latitude = -0.201 seconds
> > Longitude = - 1.770 seconds
> >
> > which is very very roughly (assuming 111 km for a degree)
> >
> > -6.2m in latitude
> > -36.9m in longtitude
> >
> > Taking 42.5 -71.5 as my standard point for these sorts of conversions (a
> > Western Middlesex centric view!), and asking NCAT for NAD27 to
> > NAD83(1986), I get a shift of that's similar. (Do this yourself at
> > https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/NCAT/ to get a nicer-to-read output.)
> >
> > Input Coordinate Output Coordinate Total Change +
> Uncertainty
> > Latitude
> > N42° 30′ 00.00000″
> > N423000.00000
> > 42.5000000000
> > Longitude
> > E288° 30′ 0.00000″
> > W0713000.00000
> > -71.5000000000
> > Ellipsoid Height (m)
> > Not given
> > Orthometric Height (m)
> > Not given
> > Reference Frame
> > NAD27
> > Geopotential Datum
> > Not given
> >
> > Latitude
> > N42° 30′ 00.33483″
> > N423000.33483
> > 42.5000930095
> > Longitude
> > E288° 30′ 1.76680″
> > W0712958.23320
> > -71.4995092223
> > Ellipsoid Height (m)
> > Not given
> > Orthometric Height (m)
> > Not given
> > Reference Frame
> > NAD83(1986)
> > Geopotential Datum
> > Not given
> >
> > Latitude
> > 0.33483″ ±0.001826″
> > (10.332 m ±0.0563 m)*
> > Longitude
> > 1.76680″ ±0.002502″
> > (40.341 m ±0.0571 m)*
> > Ellipsoid Height
> > Not given
> > Orthometric Height
> > Not given
> >
> > Then, I asked for the same thing in USSD, which is closer to the values
> > from NGS in latitude, and there the signs make sense as values to add to
> > north latitude and west longitude, which makes sense in the historical
> > context of NAD83 and 2000. (Now, we are in an ITRF world where
> > longitude is often positive east.)
> >
> > Input Coordinate Output Coordinate Total Change +
> Uncertainty
> > Latitude
> > N42° 30′ 00.00000″
> > N423000.00000
> > 42.5000000000
> > Longitude
> > E288° 30′ 0.00000″
> > W0713000.00000
> > -71.5000000000
> > Ellipsoid Height (m)
> > Not given
> > Orthometric Height (m)
> > Not given
> > Reference Frame
> > USSD
> > Geopotential Datum
> > Not given
> >
> > Latitude
> > N42° 29′ 59.79866″
> > N422959.79866
> > 42.4999440729
> > Longitude
> > E288° 30′ 1.75341″
> > W0712958.24659
> > -71.4995129427
> > Ellipsoid Height (m)
> > Not given
> > Orthometric Height (m)
> > Not given
> > Reference Frame
> > NAD83(1986)
> > Geopotential Datum
> > Not given
> >
> > Latitude
> > -0.20134″ ±0.003060″
> > (-6.213 m ±0.0944 m)*
> > Longitude
> > 1.75341″ ±0.009674″
> > (40.036 m ±0.2209 m)*
> > Ellipsoid Height
> > Not given
> > Orthometric Height
> > Not given
> >
> > So, I think the best thing that can reasonably be done with the old
> > coords is to treat them as USSD and to use NCAT.
> >
> > > (If Paul @ MassGIS or anyone else has proj4 or similar definitions of
> > the
> > > old geode / datum / coordinate systems in the Atlases, that would be
> > > wonderful to facilitate direct use. I tried to reverse engineer based
> on
> > > X-Y being statehouse cupola centered and it didn't work well IIRC. If
> we
> > > had a transform(s), it might be practical to georeference the plates as
> > > layers for our editors or Grass/QGis??)
> >
> > I would say use NCAT and go for it, and please share! As I understand
> > it NCAT has done all the hard work and the best you are likely to do is
> > reinvent it with some errors. In particular there is a lot of thinking
> > about whether to transform e.g. USSD to NAD83 by doing USSD->NAD27 and
> > NAD27->NAD83 or to do it 1-hop.
> >
> > > Mass DOT has a public GIS website that has town corners as a layer (in
> > > addition to USGS and Mass geodetic disks/monuments) with modern
> > GEODE/DATUM
> > > posits. The atlas will explain more but this gives the modern GPS posit
> > if
> > > you want to find it. IDK the license status of that data wrto OSM, but
> > > should be usable for QA/QC.
> >
> > Earlier versions were clearly usable, and while there is this somewhat
> > odd CC-BY license tags on the MassGIS website every time I or anyone
> > else has asked they grant permission. Looking at the entire history
> > over the entire time OSM has existed, it is entirely clear that MassGIS
> > has been and is completely ok with us using their data.
> >
> > I also discussed with the Secretary of State's office and it seems that
> > they don't believe public records generated by the state can be subject
> > to copyright (as in the state could not assert copyright), but it also
> > seems this is slightly a grey area. (This is similar to some other
> > states actual laws that the state can't assert copyright, but here it's
> > a bit indirect and doesn't have a court precedent.)
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Subject: Digest Footer
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-us-massachusetts mailing list
> > Talk-us-massachusetts at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > End of Talk-us-massachusetts Digest, Vol 45, Issue 2
> > ****************************************************
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20200603/1e725a92/attachment.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us-massachusetts mailing list
> Talk-us-massachusetts at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Talk-us-massachusetts Digest, Vol 45, Issue 3
> ****************************************************
>
--
Yury Yatsynovich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20200603/fbe40125/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Talk-us-massachusetts
mailing list