Changeset: 68737158
A better Palo Alto city limit
Closed by stevea
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (14824 en) |
---|---|
source | City of Palo Alto |
Discussion
-
Comment from cdruck
Hi stevea,
I'm not sure if you noticed, but I think something glitched with this changeset. There is a huge chunk of unattached points with no tags along a portion of the Palo Alto city boundary. I'm not sure what went wrong, but I thought I should bring this to your attention. Here is a node id for one of them for reference: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6374728376
-
Comment from stevea
First, thank you for calling what appears wrong to me so politely. I reloaded relation/1544955 into my JOSM browser and I found that there is a single point in that relation which had the role "label" instead of the more proper "admin_centre." I have changed this to admin_centre.
While the editor before me placed this "in the general downtown Palo Alto area" (I've been there many times), in a city (like this relation), it emerges as an OSM convention that this be placed at City Hall (rather than the relatively random nearby location of University Avenue and Centennial Walk) — a very minor fix.
However, I can't find what you mean by "a huge chunk of unattached points with no tags along a portion of the...boundary." The members of the City relation do "make a nice loop" with the members, indicating that it is a closed polygon, which for City Limits, is correct and proper.
This was a difficult edit and I was managing multiple data sources, so I am the first to agree with you that I MIGHT have left such a segment, but without some further lat/long coordinates or specific /way or /node specifications, I don't know where you mean. If you help me discover these (where you mean by continuing OSM errors), I'll do my very best to clean them up or apply whatever remedy is correct.
This channel is fine, or you could missive me at user:stevea. Thanks again! -Steve
-
Comment from stevea
Ah, I see what you mean about the ONE node you specify, but I'm now in a better process of discovering any others that exist and clean them up. It's a tricky "changeset inclusion" algorithm I'm applying. Stay tuned, I'm working on it now. This channel is fine for communication. -Steve
-
Comment from stevea
Yes, there a whole bunch of unconnected nodes not "tied together" by a way along San Francisquito Creek. I have no idea why this happened, though I suspect a bug in the JOSM editor: version 14824 which I am using and is current has had several problems I've notice (but not yet reported as defects via bug report).
I'm working on cleaning these up, though it may take me several changesets as I discover them.
-
Comment from stevea
OK, I think I got them all, but if you find more, please let me know. -Steve
-
Comment from cdruck
Thanks for getting on this so quickly! I did a quick look around the area and I did see that there are still a handful of nodes (though not as dense as before) south of El Camino along the city boundary. This string of nodes that I still see are between these 2 nodes: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6374728474 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6374728531
Other than that, it looks good! Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!
-Chris -
Comment from stevea
Sure, Chris: cleaning up OSM messes is one of my long-time undertakings in the project, especially when the mess is MINE!
I deleted those two nodes (thanks for your specificity), though I couldn't find any others. Perhaps if you tell me your method for discovering these, I can delete them all. (I loaded into JOSM the PA boundary, then used Validator plug-in to check for "unconnected node with no tag"). I don't see others, but that doesn't mean I might have missed a few!
PA is a weirdly-shaped city: it has that "strip" through the Stanford Dish area to connect the southern park areas to the urbanized area (similar to how San Diego connects San Ysidro's Mexico border area to the rest of the city, Chula Vista and National City are conveniently avoided with a clever "strip" through the bay). In the earlier version before I did this cleanup over last weekend, these were totally disconnected in PA, and it truly needed fixing. I think it is largely OK now. (Though, true to OSM fashion, "the map is never done").
Thanks again for pointing out these node glitches and again, should you find any more, I'll clean them up, or if they are minor, I might ask you to do so.
Regards,
Steve -
Comment from cdruck
Thanks for taking care of that! I will let you know if I come across anything else.
Best,
Chris
- 680786113, v1
- 680786114, v1
- 680786115, v1
- 680786116, v1
- 680786117, v1
- 680786118, v1
- 680786119, v1
- 680786120, v1
- 680786121, v1
- 680786122, v1
- 680786123, v1
- 680786124, v1
- 680786125, v1
- 680786126, v1
- 680786127, v1
- 680786128, v1
- 680786129, v1
- 680786130, v1
- 680786131, v1
- 680786132, v1
Relations (12)
- Esther Clark Park (9448380), v1
- Portola Valley (9448381), v1
- San Mateo County (396498), v37
- Santa Clara County (396501), v29
- Palo Alto (1544955), v27
- Mountain View (1544956), v15
- Menlo Park (1544957), v15
- Los Altos (1545000), v17
- Stanford (1546085), v12
- Los Altos Hills (1552032), v7
- Foothills Park (6258591), v2
- Los Trancos Woods (9441229), v4
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 |