I’m trying to figure out how to move nodes to the exact same point without merging them, since merging them changes them from multiple nodes to only one. Alternatively, being able to duplicate a node (or other feature) in the exact same spot would be useful, since it seems that currently, when I duplicate a feature it duplicates wherever my mouse/pointer is at. This would be helpful for making nodes for when the name of something changes.
View the nodes in this changeset for an example of what I would want to colocate (you may need to use JOSM or something besides the OpenHistoricalMap website to zoom in at a level where the nodes do not appear to be overlapping). Another example would be the nearby US 27 (1926 – 1973) which is now North Cedar St and (north of that) US 127 Business/Old US 27.
First of all, it’s OK if the nodes are a smidgen away from each other. The chronology relation already says that they all represent the same thing over time. Users probably won’t notice the label’s centerpoint shifting by a pixel or two when animating the time, since the name is changing anyways.
That said, to place nodes atop each other in iD, hold down Alt on Windows or Option on macOS to prevent the node from being merged as you drag it. This will also prevent it from snapping to the nearest node. If you do want it to snap but not merge, you’d drag it over the other node, then start holding down Alt or Option, then drop the node. It’s a bit of a tricky dance.
Ideally, a building like the Turner–Dodge House would be an area, rather than a point, so that it shows up on the rendered map. You can choose to connect the different iterations of the building together. You could duplicate a building using the usual shortcut, but it’s annoying to connect areas like this, node by node. Instead, you can draw a new area:
Strike the F key repeatedly to make it follow the existing area, leaving a gap somewhere so you can select the existing area again.
Select the existing area. Expand the Tags section of the left sidebar and change the view from to .
Copy the entire contents of the textbox.
Select the new area and paste into the textbox.
Fix the gap you left in step 1.
In this case, since you already mapped the building as a series of nodes, you’ll also need to merge each area with the node that represents the same iteration of the building. Select an area and a node and choose Merge from the context menu.
You can navigate among the different overlapping buildings either through the chronology relation or by selecting one of the shared nodes, pressing CtrlShiftUp on Windows or ShiftCommand↑ or macOS, and selecting the feature from list at the top of the left sidebar.
Alternatively, if the geometry of the building has never changed over time, you could map an untagged area and add it to multiple multipolygon relations.
You can’t (except for leaving them at a short distance from each other), but in this case you should create coincident areas for the building= , which is usually not added as point features. This can be done with added as =multipolygon from the bottom “Relations” of the left panel, or drawing more polygons on it.
A further theoretical discussion would be that type=building could be created, instead of more building==multipolygon , which may better separate the physical and functional aspects more. This can reflect the reality that no new structure has been created or modified, and minimize the number of main features for data manageability. However, it has no support outside 3D rendering, or perhaps indoors.
Thanks for the tips. I’ll plan on mapping the building outline for the two 1901-present features, and I think I might have seen a source that had a rough outline for the building prior to 1901, although it’s likely quite similar to what was remodeled/constructed from about 1901-1905.
But for buildings where I can’t find any source for the geometry, is there a tag I should add that will let the renderer know it should be rendered despite not having an area? Or should I just try to guess at a rough outline and add a note to the feature so it will be rendered?
An educated guess is fine. You can use the Fix Me field to indicate that the geometry is speculative or imprecise. I see that the old USGS topographic maps mark the Turner House with the standard schoolhouse symbol, which includes a square as the base, regardless of the building’s actual shape. The maps would only indicate the actual shape on larger school buildings, so at least keeping to roughly that size indicates we know it wasn’t bigger.
I was able to find this map of the township and this map supposedly of the middle and upper business districts, although the naming of this contradicts other sources I have seen stating that Upper Town/Village is in the South, where REO Town now sits (the land labeled “Biddle City” by some contemporary sources, prior to it being settled significantly/at all) and that Lower Town/Village is where Old Town/North Lansing is, but I digress. These maps have outlines for the Turner House circa 1859, so I’ll use that outline for the Turner House under construction from 1855-1858 and for the Turner House from 1858-1901. I have an outline I drew up for the modern Turner-Dodge House waiting in JOSM, I’ll add that and the outline for the older house when I finish both outlines.
I’m not sure how exactly to make the buildings as multipolygons, so I’m just gonna make 4 separate building outlines (2 unique outlines with 1 duplicate of each), merge the nodes I created early with one of the nodes in the appropriate outlines, cut and paste the tags from the node to the area, and remove the nodes from the chronology relation and add the area.
After rectifying the map on Mapwarper, I’m not very happy with the apparent size of the house on the map compared to modern aerial imagery. According to sources I’ve seen, afaict, the modern Turner-Dodge House effectively contains the older Turner House as if it were a skeleton. The map would seem to imply it was about twice the size as it is today, which doesn’t seem correct. So I’m going to leave it off for now.
