Changeset: 61840216
Rough though better name tags on admin_level at USA edges
Closed by stevea
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (14163 en) |
---|---|
source | OSM convention |
Discussion
-
Comment from A Hall
Curious what the OSM convention you're using to list these boundaries with a 'name', which is really just a description. I've been moving some of these out of 'name' and into 'notes', which seems more appropriate.
There are certain renders I've seen which are displaying "Latitude 45, rougly Cornwall east to near Kirby Line" over the international border. This does not seem like desired behavior, particularly if this name does not exist in any international standards.
-
Comment from stevea
Honestly (it WAS three years ago), I don't recall the specifics here. I vaguely recall examining these and might have found some "outliers" that didn't meet what seemed like "good naming conventions" so I likely decided to make them "at least good" (better than they were).
If you know of any "international standards" where good, better or even BEST! naming conventions supersede or improve upon what is in OSM (especially changing "rougly" to "roughly"!) please, do change them. The map welcomes your improvements.
-
Comment from A Hall
Great! Yeah, for other mappers who might find what's there as helpful, I will probably move things to the notes. Since I'm not aware of this boundary having any specific historical names (I'm thinking like the Mason-Dixon Line or the Twelve-Mile Circle), I think leaving the name field blank is probably best.
-
Comment from stevea
I do NOT think leaving the name field blank is best. The name field does correctly "name" these entities and it is used by many data consumers in OSM, like renderers, editors, "presenters" (e.g. in an "overlay" layer, clicking on a route or boundary might display the name in a pop-up), etc.
It seems like what you want to do by moving the value of what's in the name key to description or note is to "hide" it from being presented in a data presentation layer/scheme or renderer. If that is your motivation, that would be wrong, as in "don't tag for the renderer."
As you note, some of these (e.g. Mason-Dixon Line) are absolutely the "name" of the boundary, and so SHOULD (I'm 100% certain) remain in OSM and NOT be changed to a note or description key. Others that really ARE more "descriptive," well, OK, I suppose if you want to take the time to do that, it is a "more correct" way of assigning these values a better key. But now the onus of determining which really ARE "real" is totally upon you.
For the ones that CLEARLY ARE "made up descriptions" ("...roughly this to near that"), I'm OK with it. For the ones that have a clear, historical name (a real name) that survives into today, those should remain "name."
-
Comment from A Hall
You are by far the more experienced mapper, hence me reaching out. The changeset was labeled as 'OSM Convention' as justification for the edits, so I wanted to dig deeper into that. I was unable to identify anywhere that suggests that administrative boundaries NEED names, and since the name listed is entirely inappropriate, I think we have some duty as mappers for it to NOT appear on maps that some renderer may inadvertently pull it in. Even the description is ripe with inaccuracies. Perhaps once a solid line, it has been dissected into many pieces, so describing it's endpoints is no longer accurate. In addition, while there's apparently a lengthy history of trying to set up the 45th parallel as the border, but due to a couple bonehead surveyors and decades of precedent, the final border is slightly north of the 45th parallel.
I don't want to remove it simply so as a name, it doesn't get rendered, but rather, since it's inaccurate information, it should not be rendered. In the event that it may be useful to someone else, I side with preserving the data in the notes field. From your previous response, you seem to waiver between "administrative boundaries SHOULD have names" and "administrative boundaries should only have names if there is a name". If the former, I'm not sure what sort of data should be entered as a name if no historical name exists.
-
Comment from stevea
Well, you say "rendered" and I know what you mean. But it might also be "displayed in a pop-up in an overlay layer" (for example) and it wouldn't be wrong to do that. If / as you move it from key name to key note or key description, yes, you are "being accurate" in the case of the "hand-wavy" ones, I've said I'm OK with that.
But stuff like "Mason-Dixon Line" well, that IS its name. For those "solidly named ones," I'd leave it name key.
That's a discriminating task, though it is where a "more precise, reasoned, seasoned" opinion (mine) lies. Make of it what you will, and I appreciate you asking me.
The stuff about "dissolving into pieces," yes, that is what is happening. We as the "next editor in line" who must (or does) salvage the pieces / remnants of how the data were originally authored, well, we must "simply" do our best. I can tell that's what you want to do and offer the perspective of "data are seen a lot of ways through a lot of lenses" and it isn't always clear to us as authors which lens data will get looked through as we author them.
(For example, a lot of TIGER rail data from about 2006 has "smeary" edges on certain tags, it's actually a sort of interesting thing to see how it happened (sometimes this is clear, sometimes its really muddy) and how it might be fixed. Sometimes, things can't be fixed and either must get tossed or "kept, but mostly ignored."
- Canada-US Great Lakes maritime boundary (Saint Lawrence River) (618386976), v1
- Latitude 45, rougly Cornwall east to near Kirby Line (29335519), v26
- Latitude 45, rougly Cornwall east to near Kirby Line (29336265), v28
- Latitude 45, rougly near Kirby Line east to Maine (29336392), v39
- Latitude 45, rougly Cornwall east to near Kirby Line (29377663), v54
- QC-ME border (29641201), v11
- Province of New Brunswick, Canada (30113840), v45
- Latitude 45, rougly Cornwall east to near Kirby Line (30287809), v35
- Canada-US Great Lakes maritime boundary (Superior-Huron) (34363522), v8
- Canada-US Great Lakes maritime boundary (Lake Saint Clair) (34364286), v6
- Canada-US Great Lakes maritime boundary (Lake Saint Clair) (34365866), v8
- Canada-US Great Lakes maritime boundary (Lake Saint Clair) (34365957), v5
- Canada-US Great Lakes maritime boundary (Erie-Ontario) (45474775), v8
- Canada-US Great Lakes maritime boundary (Erie-Ontario) (45474782), v8
- Canada-US Great Lakes maritime boundary (Erie-Ontario) (45474783), v9
- Canada-US Great Lakes maritime boundary (Erie-Ontario) (45474784), v10
- Canada-US Great Lakes maritime boundary (Erie-Ontario) (45474785), v11
- Canada-US Great Lakes maritime boundary (Erie-Ontario) (45474787), v10
- Canada-US Great Lakes maritime boundary (Erie-Ontario) (45474792), v9
- NB-ME border (48343411), v15
Relations (2)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |