[Talk-us-massachusetts] Talk-us-massachusetts Digest, Vol 44, Issue 1

[Yury Yatsynovich]

I'm not aware of any places where MassGIS is wrong...
Recently I asked them about the border between Cantor and Norwood near the
exits 11 of I-95 which looked a bit suspicious to me:
****
ME:

Hi Paul,
I've noticed that the Neponset River near the Exits 11 from I-95 highway
has been modified (streamlined).
Do you know if the border between Norwood and Canton has been adjusted
accordingly or kept along the old flow?
Different sources suggest different results:
- the map from http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/map_ol/canton.php suggests
that the border remains along the old stream
- the map from
https://www.town.canton.ma.us/DocumentCenter/View/5632/2019-Street-Map
shows that the border has been aligned along the new stream

PAUL:

I do not know that answer to this specific boundary issue. But I can tell
you that our datalayer is updated when the disputes/discrepancies get
ironed out. My guess would be that the original bound contained language
about the river. When it was rerouted for 95 a cartographer at some point
tried to recreate and simply followed the river as it existed at the time,
and that our data is correct.
I could be cc’ing a colleague who may have more info on this particular
instance, but I have been instructed not to bother him.

***


On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 4:43 PM Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:

> Yury Yatsynovich <yury.yatsynovich at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Sorry, Greg, I could have explained in more clearly.
> > Here is an example of a border between Newton and Watertown:
> > The way (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/142866017) 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
>
> I looked at this in OLIVER, and the boundary looks to be pretty
> mid-point of their representation of water.  One can nitpick about the
> exact points, but it looks pretty good:
>
>
> http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/map_ol/oliver.php?lyrs=2019%20Color%20Orthos%20(USGS)~Orthos_2019~|Structures~Basemaps_Structures~|Tax%20Parcels%20for%20Display~Basemaps_L3Parcels~|Detailed%20Features~Basemaps_MassGISBasemapWithLabels2~|Tax%20Parcels%20for%20Query~massgis:GISDATA.L3_TAXPAR_POLY_ASSESS~Blank_Polys_Max_18057|Massachusetts%20Towns%20Survey%20Boundaries~massgis:GISDATA.TOWNSSURVEY_ARC~GISDATA.TOWNSSURVEY_ARC::Default&bbox=-71.21519443000564,42.363946497684616,-71.21228423322435,42.365724173378744&coordUnit=m&measureUnit=m&base=MassGIS%20Statewide%20Basemap&center=-7927477.1998803,5215787.6488628&zoom=19&opacity=1,1,1,1,1,1&baseO=1&filt=undefined|undefined|undefined|undefined|undefined|undefined
> <http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/map_ol/oliver.php?lyrs=2019%20Color%20Orthos%20(USGS)~Orthos_2019~%7CStructures~Basemaps_Structures~%7CTax%20Parcels%20for%20Display~Basemaps_L3Parcels~%7CDetailed%20Features~Basemaps_MassGISBasemapWithLabels2~%7CTax%20Parcels%20for%20Query~massgis:GISDATA.L3_TAXPAR_POLY_ASSESS~Blank_Polys_Max_18057%7CMassachusetts%20Towns%20Survey%20Boundaries~massgis:GISDATA.TOWNSSURVEY_ARC~GISDATA.TOWNSSURVEY_ARC::Default&bbox=-71.21519443000564,42.363946497684616,-71.21228423322435,42.365724173378744&coordUnit=m&measureUnit=m&base=MassGIS%20Statewide%20Basemap&center=-7927477.1998803,5215787.6488628&zoom=19&opacity=1,1,1,1,1,1&baseO=1&filt=undefined%7Cundefined%7Cundefined%7Cundefined%7Cundefined%7Cundefined>
>
>
> Can you point to someplace where the MassGIS data is apparently wrong?
>
>
> Or is this all about "there should be one way" rather than a data
> quality issue?
>


-- 
Yury Yatsynovich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20200611/0e84e331/attachment.htm>