Changeset: 61451217
I work for New England Outdoor Center.Just sharing what I know with the community at large.
Closed by Rustbelt
Tags
changesets_count | 1092 |
---|---|
created_by | iD 2.10.0 |
host | https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit |
imagery_used | Bing aerial imagery |
locale | en-US |
Discussion
-
Comment from glglgl
May I know what was wrong with the deleted line here? Its deletion left the respective relation (T2 R8 WELS Township, 8439730) broken.
-
Comment from glglgl
The other one was incomplete as well, so I reverted this changeset. I hope you are ok with that.
-
Comment from Rustbelt
I deleted it a couple of days ago because it was in the wrong place. Your new line, too, is in the wrong location. The actual boundary is north of Kelloch Mountain.
-
Comment from glglgl
If you know the correct location, may I ask you to just correct it? I am not from there and only help (among others) to fix boundaries which are structurally broken (such as missing lines which result in incompete relations).
The correct way to fix that is to move the points or to have the lines (ways) touch each other as they do now. If you need help doing that, feel free to ask again.
I try to move the line further to the North in the meanwhile. -
Comment from Rustbelt
Honestly, I don't like someone watching over my shoulder like this. The last time someone else jumped in to "help" screwed up what I was working on and I simply gave up editing for almost a year. I find myself in a similar situation today: an over zealous person who is located nowhere near here, has zero local knowledge of this area, who meddles without asking for answers first. I'm sorry that I work for a living and I cannot watch for changeset reversions at 3:00 am.
If you would like to be helpful, please put it back the way you found it, and when I have time, I will fix this problem using properly sourced materials from the State of Maine. And if you're going to send a message asking for a response—as you did—kindly allow a reasonable amount of time to respond.
-
Comment from glglgl
Mmmm… according to https://www.nps.gov/kaww/planyourvisit/upload/Katahdin-Woods-and-Waters-Recreation-Map.pdf, the boundaries seem correct. (While this may not be a legal data source for changes, I think it can happily be used for arguing a "non-change"…)
-
Comment from glglgl
Sorry, I saw your second change right now.
I am sorry to meddle with you work, but OpenStreetMap is a community project where everybody is welcome to contribute.
You have told me what you don't like, I, on the other side, don't like it when people randomly remove boundary parts and leave admin relations open and incomplete. Even if this boundary part is slightly misplaced, removing altogether is not good.
I am not watching over your shoulder concretely, I am just looking at the admin relations found to turned defective by (as in this example) https://wambachers-osm.website/index.php/10-osm-reports/1316-countries-compare-2018-08-09.
I am definitely not going to remove this part again, as I am sure "Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument" has a south boundary and "T2 R8 WELS Township" has a north boundary. Removing them would harm the integrity of said boundaries/multipolygon, and repairing things is not "over zalous", as you call it.
-
Comment from glglgl
If, however, you feel the need to remove it again, I won't be able to prevent you from doing that. I am going to retract myself from your region and let you destroy multipolygons at your will, but don't be surprised if that reduces OSM's overall usability.
-
Comment from Rustbelt
Hey! I'm not just "destroying multipolygons at…will." I've been doing this type of work for about 30 years, long before open source was a concept, so I have a very strong sense of what data integrity should look like so that it works correctly. I simply wish that when someone steps into an area, that more coordination happened between editors towards the same end rather than towards cross purposes.
You've given me a LOT to reply to. In particular, you mention https://www.nps.gov/kaww/planyourvisit/upload/Katahdin-Woods-and-Waters-Recreation-Map.pdf as a potentional source. This map is a solid source, but you read the information on it incorrectly; as I mentioned above, the correct line for this township is north of Kelloch Mountain. This map corroborates this assertion, although it is not a well-designed map, and your interpretation is an easy mistake to commit.
Although it is not labeled, the actual township line falls between points 3 and 4 (and slightly north of point 7) on this map: https://bdn-data.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs.dir/37/files/2017/08/FKWW-Loop-Rd-map-web-page-001.jpg This map was produced by a non-profit organization that works closely with the National Park Service. It also corroborates your source when you take into account the poor map design.
Its nice to use a PDF like yours—it IS an official source (although it is NOT authoritative). Personally, I use MEGIS (q.v. via Googling MEGIS) for my data sources. This data IS authoritative and better for this type of verification. IMO.
-
Comment from Rustbelt
Look, I'm sorry. I don't mean to get in your face about this. Over my first-thing-in-the-morning coffee, I saw two messages without a pause for a reply and immediately thought, "Great. Here we go again."
Last year, some dork really was changing things that I had laid down. He lives in Virginia and usually messes with things in Western Maine—there is a lot to do over there, and I avoid doing data work there. I'm concerned with the poor condition of data in my local area. Apparently, he noticed that work was being done in my "neck of the woods," and took it upon himself to start doing things his way without coordination, without using any sense of standards, etc. Hell, I verify every single road that I tweak with the state and often I visit the area for further verification. That's a step that someone a thousand miles away in Virginia simply can't do, yet new roads were popping up and being used as if they were "real." They weren't, and it was really annoying to clean up his efforts.
I am sorry for my misunderstanding.
-
Comment from glglgl
Now, maybe I was a little bit harsh. Sorry for that, I think it is better to get it along like civilized people. :-)
> Hey! I'm not just "destroying multipolygons at…will."
I am sure you do not intend do. But, in fact, your action removed a common part of two existing multipolygons. That is a thing that can happen by accident, in Germany we say "it's not a broken leg". But I think it is legitimate to fix it when one is pointed to that. And the most simple thing in this case is (for me) to just restore the line which was removed (apparently accidental). That's why I stepped in at the first place.
> I simply wish that when someone steps into an area, that more coordination happened between editors towards the same end rather than towards cross purposes.
This is normally what I as well think about the correct behaviour, and that's why I let local people normally do all changes. But in my opinion, structural changes (where the integrity of borders and other multipolygons is vilated) are excluded from this. Besides that, I think if someone finds an edge of an area to be erroneus, it is better to fix it (after having gotten the necessary data needed for that) than to remove it altogether. But I realize that other people might think different about that.
Having read about your experience with that other guy, I can understand your harsh reply, Although it is a small difference between a restored line and a bunch of streets, I absolutely can understand that you were upset.
-
Comment from glglgl
About the data sources, the PDF I found was just a first short search, just to have a look about what is now the real thing and what not.
But now, that we talking about that, thanks for your JPG. Having a look at it, I now think hat we have different scope:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/439488910 is the very southmost border of the KW&W National Monument, i. e. the line between T2 R8 WELS (see the PDF) and the National Monument (whose borders are green on that JPG). It doesn't even appear at the JPG as it is cropped a little bit at the bottom.
OTOH, the dotted line you talk about is not present on OSM yet.
Maybe that already cleans up all confusion, and you should consider this on your further edits.Have a nice day!
Ways (1)
Relations (2)
Nodes (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 |