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

Fri May 29 13:29:46 UTC 2020

As for Wayne's point -- when one selects a way that is a part of a
boundary, both JOSM and iD show that this way is a part of boundary
relations as well as the admin level of it.

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 9:24 AM Yury Yatsynovich <yury.yatsynovich at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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 and Dedham <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedham,_Massachusetts>,
> Newton is bounded by the Charles River
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_River>." (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 (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/142866017) 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.
>
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 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. Towns' borders along rivers (Yury Yatsynovich)
>>    2. Re: Towns' borders along rivers (Greg Troxel)
>>    3. Re: Towns' borders along rivers (Wayne Emerson, Jr.)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 17:24:14 -0400
>> From: Yury Yatsynovich <yury.yatsynovich at gmail.com>
>> To: OSM Massachusetts <talk-us-massachusetts at openstreetmap.org>
>> Subject: [Talk-us-massachusetts] Towns' borders along rivers
>> Message-ID:
>>         <CAJbo8cHUR+CdK5yjR9VFQFXGEhtDddg10uVKPonyo7T=
>> HBhGxg at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Hi!
>> I was wondering if everybody is comfortable about aligning towns' borders
>> with the waterways (where the borders actually go along the waterways) and
>> removing the redundant ways with tags "boundary=administrative",
>> "admin_level=X" that currently serve as segments of borders?
>> For instance, I did it this way here:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/809321106
>>
>> --
>> Yury Yatsynovich
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20200528/31898eac/attachment-0001.htm
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 20:09:58 -0400
>> From: Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com>
>> To: Yury Yatsynovich <yury.yatsynovich at gmail.com>
>> Cc: OSM Massachusetts <talk-us-massachusetts at openstreetmap.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-us-massachusetts] Towns' borders along rivers
>> Message-ID: <rmio8q7k3e1.fsf at s1.lexort.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain
>>
>> Yury Yatsynovich <yury.yatsynovich at gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > I was wondering if everybody is comfortable about aligning towns'
>> borders
>> > with the waterways (where the borders actually go along the waterways)
>> and
>> > removing the redundant ways with tags "boundary=administrative",
>> > "admin_level=X" that currently serve as segments of borders?
>> > For instance, I did it this way here:
>> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/809321106
>>
>> I am not at all comfortable with this, at least without really
>> understanding.
>>
>> Are you talking about a place where there is a statute that says that
>> the boundary is the middle of some waterway, even if the waterway moves
>> over time?  What exactly do you mean by "the borders actually go along
>> the waterways"?  Can you provide a link to statute or some authoritatie
>> source?
>>
>> How does such an aligned border compare to the MassGIS Towns Survey
>> layer?
>>
>>
>> I don't follow what you mean about "removing redundant ways".  Do you
>> mean making the boundary into a relation?  I am guessing you mean using
>> a river way instead of a boundary way for that part of the relation?
>> That doesn't seem intrinsically problematic if the boundary is really
>> defined to dynamically follow the centerline of the waterway even if the
>> waterway moves.
>>
>>
>> Or do you mean "when the town boundary is specified by coordinate in
>> statute, and that line is close to the middle of a waterway that also
>> has defined edges, should we move the middle of the waterway to be the
>> coordinates on record as the border?"   If so, I don't see how this is
>> robust against people thinking it's ok to move the waterway around to a
>> way that seems better from the water point of view, with collateral
>> damage of moving the boundary.
>>
>> In the case of Hudson/Stow, it more or less goes (for part of it) along
>> what sort of seems like the middle (ish) of Lake Boon.  But the boundary
>> is NOT defined by any notion of middle of the wear; it is defined by
>> statue (1978?) that specifies coordinates.  Certainly those were chosen
>> to be in the middleish, but if the lake moves, the boundary does not.
>> This is a lake not a river, so there is no centerline, and your quesiton
>> doesn't apply.
>>
>> In your case of what looks like waltham/weston, what is the legal
>> definition of the boundary and how is it anchored?
>>
>> My next questions is why is there a water type line in the middle of a
>> reservoir, which doesn't  seem to be a river.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 20:19:31 -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: <336c296b-7e48-6ad3-8506-41958b931525 at verizon.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>
>> I try to make separate ways for the river & the admin boundary. People
>> tend to move the rivers around and when a river is also an admin
>> boundary there is no visual difference in iD. (I mentioned this (as
>> Thorwynn) in an issue with iD (initially unrelated) but they ignored
>> it.) https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6162
>> (It turned into a long discussion about admin boundaries also being
>> other things)
>>
>> Someone in that thread quoted the wiki : "Avoid connecting boundaries to
>> physical features like woods or rivers. Sooner or later these features
>> change in reality and get updated in OSM – but usually the shape of the
>> boundary remains. An exception is if the boundary is legally defined to
>> be the physical feature."
>> It seemed most in the thread agreed with this. In my experience the
>> official boundaries from MassGIS don't always align with the river
>> center or thalweg, and especially in marshy river areas I have found
>> that rivers-as-admin borders have been moved far from the official line.
>>
>> I have always made sure the "boundary=administrative", "admin_level=X"
>> were on the ways. (only a few were missing them) I know others think
>> they are not needed, but the tags are already there and make it easy for
>> a mapper to distinguish what type of boundary it is.
>>
>> -Wayne
>>
>> On 5/28/2020 5:24 PM, Yury Yatsynovich wrote:
>> > Hi!
>> > I was wondering if everybody is comfortable about aligning towns'
>> > borders with the waterways (where the borders actually go along the
>> > waterways) and removing the redundant ways with tags
>> > "boundary=administrative", "admin_level=X" that currently serve as
>> > segments of borders?
>> > For instance, I did it this way here:
>> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/809321106
>> >
>> > --
>> > Yury Yatsynovich
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Talk-us-massachusetts mailing list
>> > Talk-us-massachusetts at openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts
>>
>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20200528/d5e40ea7/attachment-0001.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 44, Issue 1
>> ****************************************************
>>
>
>
> --
> Yury Yatsynovich
>

-- 
Yury Yatsynovich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20200529/62ad87cb/attachment-0001.htm>