OpenGeofiction

Boundaries

Posted by histor on 10 April 2015 in German (Deutsch).

I wish, some people are more careful with the boundaries of administration-units. If one do not exactly know , what to do, then he (or she) can please look in our wiki-tutorial about boundaries, before he (or she) draws a lot of false boundaries.

So please …

… set not a new boundary at an older boundary without to to make at the connecting node two pieces of the old boundary (with the scissor-tool) . In other case no one of your boundary-relations will work well.

… let never two or more boundary-ways let run about the same nodes. If anywhere is an administrative boundary it is always only ONE way. What a sort of boundary this is, is shown with the admin_level. So if a country-boundary (level 2) and a province-boundary (level 4) have the same way, draw only the country-boundary. The province-boundary between different provinces must end at the country-boundary and NOT run with the country-boundary around your province.

Comment from Paxtar on 11 April 2015 at 17:09

I attempted to follow the instructions of the wiki-tutorial to fix my boundaries.

http://opengeofiction.net/wiki/index.php/OGF:Administrative_boundaries

A problem I had was a number of conflicts between the boundaries that I had downloaded months ago, and the changes I attempted to upload, which did not include information my neighbor had entered. I went through the process of resolving conflicts, accepting the current server version on all of them.

I thought I had everything set correctly, so I uploaded the changes, but it now looks like I’ve deleted the country boundary with my neighbor.

Before I make a bigger mess of things, can anyone offer advice on how to fix the problem, or fix it for me (sorry!), and let me know how not to repeat the mistake when I try to update the other boundaries?

Comment from Paxtar on 11 April 2015 at 17:41

I think I’ve repaired the damage. I’ll wait before attempting additional updates.

Comment from histor on 11 April 2015 at 18:01

I think, you had not. So now I set your country-boundary new 19:45 and put it to the relation 861, that they are now a closed ring around your land again. This relation # 865 is Paxtar. And now you can see again the name of your land on the map.

If an boundary is correct, ist not only seen with a purple way on the map. So your boundaries of your provinces run in one way around your provinces - as I describe first. And so the names of your provinces are not shown on the map. So always on your country-boundary lay two ways - the country and the province. And where a province boundary connected with the country boundary, there the way of the country boundary run thru. Exactly this I mean, as I wrote this note.

So here are best way = read please the tutorial. Delete all your province boundaries. Draw them new, as it is correct. It is not the yellow from the egg, when I do it for you - better is, you know it yourself.

Comment from histor on 11 April 2015 at 18:06

@ to Paxtar = only your province “Confractera” is bound in a relation, so I see. “Sabisii” (and the others?) not. So you can see the name of Confractera, but not the other names.

Comment from Paxtar on 11 April 2015 at 18:57

I am a bit confused. Your initial post had this:

“So if a country-boundary (level 2) and a province-boundary (level 4) have the same way, draw only the country-boundary. The province-boundary between different provinces must end at the country-boundary and NOT run with the country-boundary around your province.”

I read that as meaning that there should be only one way, and that is used twice.

A later post had this: “ So always on your country-boundary lay two ways - the country and the province.”

I read this as meaning that there are two overlapping ways, which does not seem to agree with the earlier part.

Confracterra was the only relation I attempted to update. I wanted feedback before updating the others so as to not risk causing additional problems.

Comment from histor on 11 April 2015 at 19:32

Look at your boundary of “Sabishii”-province. Here you have no relation, but the boundary way with admin_level 4 do not end at country-boundary, but runs with the country boundary about the same nodes. Look at the point at 6.02823/-34.02035 (node 6205765). To the west run a Boundary with admin_level 2 and the relations for 861 (Paxtar), 11285 (province Confractera) and 8682 (Ambro Marbodo). To the south run two ways - I had differ them a little, to see it. One is without tag, bound at relation 11285 and the other ab admin-4-boundary, named “Sabishii” which not ended at the country-boundary, but goes with the country-boundary to the east and is not bound at any relation. So there are two ways - the regular boundary for Paxtar and the irregulaire of Sabishii.

Regulaire is at this point as boundary = * to the west = admin_level 2, relations 861 and 11285 * to the east = admin_level 2, relations 861 and a new for Sabishii * to the south = admin_level 4, relations 11285 and the new for Sabishii

So first kill your wrong level 4 boundary, then make the way without tag for admin-level 4 and give them to to the new relation for Sabishii. And if you had deleted this wrong boundary for Sabishii, you will in the east of thos node fond a way without tad - that is the way, what must be the boundary-administrative with admin-level 2.

Comment from BelpheniaProject on 11 April 2015 at 20:00

Every time when I make new boundaries near the border in Belphenia, I experience duplicated ways along the Belphenia-Orinoco border, which I can’t assign my relations right to my own boundaries due to many duplicated ways along the border. That is why I kept clicking on a segment of a way I want in JOSM, even the iD editor, but instead I selected the entire way that I don’t want because of a duplicated way on the Belphenia-Orinoco border.

I always make my prefecture boundaries end at nodes where they meet each other and not running along ways as duplicated ways along the Belphenia-Orinoco border.

Comment from histor on 11 April 2015 at 20:09

Hello Remi - it seems so, that many user made doubled ways at the boundary. More, as I had thought. So please write your neighbour a note, to delete this doubled ways. On a boundary between to countries should be only one way, tagged with boundary=administrative and admin_level = 2 and the relations are normaly = Country A, Country B, province in country A, province in country B and may be relations for counties or towns or villages.

And I think, for all it is better to let the boundary free from ways for areas of wood, meadow, fields and so on. This areas can end some meters away from the boundary, so that there is a better overlook for “international” boundaries.

Comment from Voytek on 11 April 2015 at 20:19

I think my boundaries are fine now? If not - you failed Histor :D I used JOSM last times and learned to use it for relations when adding cities as area centre. Also I fixed “Aryain” level 8 relation. If JOSM Validator shows no errors, then it’s all good, right? I was also doing Counties for Canadeshia and those are shown on the map so I think I’m not doing mistakes anymore :)

Maybe you can update OGF:Area Table? Then we can see current status and errors.

Comment from Paxtar on 11 April 2015 at 21:33

@histor

If you can, could you please take a look at what I’ve done to make sure it’s correct. Province names appear, and I don’t think I destroyed any international borders this time.

Thank you for the push to get me to do it. It makes a little more sense now, and I feel more comfortable with relations, which I have been avoiding since I started mapping.

Comment from histor on 11 April 2015 at 22:09

@ Paxtar = indeed you made it right. I dont have looked at all knots, but so it is clear. The only one thing is, I have given some ways the tag for “boundary = administrative”. It is o.k. without this tag too, but if you will see, what way this untagged way is - so the tag make it more clear.

Relations are only complicated on the first look. They are not more, as a basket for ways - all ways for a certain area you have in the “basket” of the relation.


Login to leave a comment