Hi, it looks like you replaced some streets with bare ways that are part of multilinestring relations. These edits came up in an ongoing discussion on the forum about how to model a road that has changed over time; please have a look. Thanks!

https://forum.openhistoricalmap.org/t/roads-how-to-represent-evolution/159/25

It looks like you deleted some POIs and streets that another mapper had traced from a Sanborn. Is that because the Sanborn was incorrect? If the feature is correct but can’t be dated yet, set the start_date=1924 start_date:edtf=/1924, which says it existed by 1924 but may have existed earlier than that.

Hi, I noticed you deleted several streets in Sulphur Springs. These streets seem to still exist, so they should be mapped somehow. If the problem is only start_date=1931 based on a 1931 map, then instead of deleting the street, add start_date:edtf=/1931 to indicate that it could’ve existed before that year. You could also contact the original mapper, MrMap, to see if they’re able to find a more precise source about when the town was platted.

Hi, a series of these changesets (including 142484, 142526, and 142518, among others) split ways without copying over relation memberships, resulting in gaps in boundary relations. I fixed this for the time zone boundaries in changesets 142532, 142533, 142534, 142535, and 142537, but ways like 200574927 continue to be gaps in various subnational administrative boundary relations. Could you please fix these gaps and double-check that your JOSM workflow downloads any coincident boundaries before splitting ways? Thanks!

Hi, each of the members of relation 2831059 needs an “inner” or “outer” role. You should be able to detect this problem and others like it by running the JOSM validator. Thanks!

As requested by CuratorOfThePast (anachronism)

https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/changeset/138526

Testing e-mail.

Reverted in changeset 125043 as requested by Dimitar155.

Reverted in changeset 125043 as requested by Dimitar155.

Not sure how this happened, but the end_date on one of these relations caused a nasty bug in iD: https://github.com/OpenHistoricalMap/issues/issues/826

By the way, in case in helps, Caltrans maintains a comprehensive dataset of state- and locally-maintained bridges in the public domain. Feel free to crib from it: https://github.com/codeforsanjose/OSM-SouthBay/issues/24

Interestingly, OSM seems to think the counties don’t include water even today. By the way, you might be interested in this broader discussion:

https://forum.openhistoricalmap.org/t/how-should-we-handle-territorial-waters-or-should-we-include-shorelines-in-boundaries/154

Fixed the Eastern Time Zone boundaries in changeset 116948.

Fixed Eastern Time Zone boundaries in changeset 116442.

A clearer example: is https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/node/2104063830 from 1799 to 1809 or from 756 to 1870?

In this case, I was linking the chronology relation to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q120752286, which is about the territorial evolution of San Marino. That item has no associated Wikipedia article, so the inspector wouldn’t show a snippet anyways.

More generally, I think we should limit the wiki tags to the highest-order element when it exactly matches the Wikidata item. One practical reason is that the snippet won’t be tailored to the individual member.

For example, the inspector lists a date range of 1860–1870 for https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/node/2104063828 based on its start_date and end_date tags, but the snippet immediately below it says “between 1859 and 1870”, referring to the entire chronology.

I realize this is unsatisfying, but maybe what we need is a more convenient way to navigate a chronology relation, starting with https://github.com/OpenHistoricalMap/issues/issues/601

Hi, do you have any information about when the boundaries of these counties were extended into Lake Michigan? So far, all I’ve found in the territorial laws and session laws for the Lake Michigan counties are boundary descriptions based on PLSS townships and ranges, or specifically stating that the boundary runs along the shoreline. [1] Were the lakeward boundaries perhaps a later introduction, from after Michigan and neighboring states settled on the state line through the lake?

[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=uECSGi3Qlu4C&pg=PA196

Changeset 109553 undoes the change to relation 109512. Relation 2796088 covers the period from 1822 to 1855, when the border with Canada was defined.

If you know which language(s) the Canaanite name would apply to, we can probably come up with a reasonable name:* subkey to apply. I think it’s OK to add, say, Aramaic to the main name tag even if the MapLibre GL renderer doesn’t support it yet. There are efforts underway to better support complex text in that renderer, which will benefit right-to-left languages as well.

Thanks as always for all the detail you’re adding! From the osm_id tags you’re adding, it looks like you’re copying features from OpenStreetMap and adding dates to them. If you didn’t author these features in OSM to begin with, please make sure to also add license=ODbL to each way in order to acknowledge OSM’s license.

OHM prefers public domain content where possible, and most mappers go through the trouble of remapping things from scratch just to accomplish that. But if you prefer to start with OSM data, properly attributing OSM will keep us on good terms with that project. Thank you for understanding.