On 27/01/11 14:12, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:10 PM, 4x4falconi...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
Physical things can change (eg road or railway realignment), non physical
don't necessarily change. In the case of boundaries do we definitely know
that when a road is realigned does
On 27/01/11 20:21, 4x4falcon wrote:
On 27/01/11 14:12, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:10 PM, 4x4falconi...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
Physical things can change (eg road or railway realignment), non
physical
don't necessarily change. In the case of boundaries do we definitely
On 27/01/11 18:06, {withheld} wrote:
On 27/01/11 20:21, 4x4falcon wrote:
On 27/01/11 14:12, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:10 PM, 4x4falconi...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
Physical things can change (eg road or railway realignment), non
physical
don't necessarily change. In the
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:21 PM, 4x4falcon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
So your mapping for the renderer.
I'm mapping for renderers, yes.
Why, what are *you* mapping for?
Is it colinear or close nodes, without looking at in an editor?
If you look in an editor such as josm you will see that its
On 27 January 2011 21:17, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Note to self: add feature to hide and render unselectable all admin=boundary.
I used to always do this (using Josm filters) when working in country
areas around Qld, the shire boundaries and roads were always
interfering with
On 27/01/11 19:17, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:21 PM, 4x4falconi...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
So your mapping for the renderer.
I'm mapping for renderers, yes.
Why, what are *you* mapping for?
Basic premise of openstreetmap has always been Don't map for the
renderers map
On 27 January 2011 21:06 pheasant.cou...@gmail.com wrote:
* ABS2006 boundaries don't follow coastlines when coastlines change.
What about when coastlines haven't changed, but when the ABS2006
boundary drifts from the coastline?
The answer here, is we don't know whether they intended to follow
On 27 January 2011 22:04, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote:
interfering with each other. Then I started finding problems where
sometimes they were connected, sometime they weren't, sometimes the
boundary and road way was the same thing (so if you hide them the road
vanishes as well). So
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 8:46 PM, 4x4falcon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
Don't duplicate nodes or ways and don't join physical to non-physical.
Why not, and why not? Not to be rude, but it seems there are a few
different opinions around, so I think we give reasons for our
preferences.
When I say
On 26/01/11 20:00, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 8:46 PM, 4x4falconi...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
Don't duplicate nodes or ways and don't join physical to non-physical.
Why not, and why not? Not to be rude, but it seems there are a few
different opinions around, so I think we give
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:10 PM, 4x4falcon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
Physical things can change (eg road or railway realignment), non physical
don't necessarily change. In the case of boundaries do we definitely know
that when a road is realigned does the boundary change with it. This has
On 24/01/11 07:10, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Ian Sergeantinas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
Having a separate layer may be appropriate for data we are considering
importing to OSM that will never need to be user modified. Data in
this category is better combined with OSM
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
Having a separate layer may be appropriate for data we are considering
importing to OSM that will never need to be user modified. Data in
this category is better combined with OSM as a post-processing step.
I don't
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Markus_g marku...@bigpond.com wrote:
I prefer option 1 for the coastlines to be separate to the Admin boundaries.
They're also separate in options 4 and 5.
I think we're being overly precious about the quality of the ABS
imports. In many cases they're clearly
On 20 January 2011 09:59, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
I think we're being overly precious about the quality of the ABS
imports. In many cases they're clearly meant to follow a geographical
feature, but don't do it particularly well when overlaid on the OSM
data. That makes it
On 20 January 2011 10:39, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree, and I'll go one step further.
Unless we intend to amend, edit and correct data then don't put it into OSM.
So in other words, according to you, we shouldn't be doing any mapping
in regional areas as people may not
On 20 January 2011 11:39, I wrote:
I agree, and I'll go one step further.
Unless we intend to amend, edit and correct data then don't put it into
OSM. Use it as a layer, or whatever, but don't clutter a wiki with static,
un-usermodifiable data.
On 20 January 2011 11:43, John Smith
If you want to just keep the ABS data in OSM as a pure copy of the ABS
data,
and not modify it even where it is obviously supposed to follow the
coastline, but just misses it, then what is the point of having it the ABS
data contained within the OSM to begin with? It may as well just be a
On 20 January 2011 14:58, ed...@billiau.net wrote:
if the AS data is melded with other stuff in OSM then we have great
difficulty in amending / updating / editing it.
you mention another layer but this isn't easily available
I can't really see where the difficulty arises.
We can simply
On 20 January 2011 10:54, Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote:
Was I really that unclear? ..or are you being obtuse?
What is it with aussie humour that everyone else doesn't seem to get.
You completely missed my point.
I was suggesting there is always going to be data that isn't touched,
On 20 January 2011 13:58, ed...@billiau.net wrote:
if the AS data is melded with other stuff in OSM then we have great
difficulty in amending / updating / editing it.
you mention another layer but this isn't easily available
You may find things went the other way also, extra tags were added
On 20 January 2011 14:50, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, data that just doesn't happen to be modified, due to being
in a remote or rarely accessed area, is obviously distinctly different
from data that we import into OSM explicitly with the knowledge and
intention that it
On 20 January 2011 14:50, I wrote:
Data that just doesn't happen to be modified, due to being
in a remote or rarely accessed area, is obviously distinctly different
from data that we import into OSM explicitly with the knowledge and
intention that it should not be modified to preserve
On 20 January 2011 15:15, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
Quite the contrary. To be blunt, I'm basically saying, if it is in
OSM, then it is fair game to be corrected, aligned and modified. If
someone is suggesting that data imported into OSM be maintained
pristine, aligned with an
On 20 January 2011 15:15, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
if it is in OSM, then it is fair game to be corrected, aligned and modified.
If
someone is suggesting that data imported into OSM be maintained
pristine, aligned with an external source, then it shouldn't have been
imported
On 20 January 2011 15:47, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
In the email that I responded to (and which you in turn responded to
me), there was a list of 5 options.
Option 1 was to leave admin boundaries unchanged, and not align them
(even as separate ways) to the coastline data, i.e
As an aside, as large and as remote in parts of Australia are, I'd be
surprised if you could put your finger on a way that will never be
touched again, either by on the ground survey, or by aerial
photography review. If you'd care to name one, I'd be happy to place
a wager!
Ian.
I don´t
On 20/01/11 17:51, ed...@billiau.net wrote:
As an aside, as large and as remote in parts of Australia are, I'd be
surprised if you could put your finger on a way that will never be
touched again, either by on the ground survey, or by aerial
photography review. If you'd care to name one,
On 18/01/11 14:46, Steve Bennett wrote:
Would be good to come up with a general policy on administrative
boundaries and coastlines. What end result do we want exactly?
Here are five options:
1) Administrative boundaries are as imported, and will randomly
criss-cross the coastline (current
I believe this is the same issue that I raised before.
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-September/004719.html
My interpretation of John Smith's view was that in some cases the
admin boundary is defined by where the river (or in this case
coastline) is. In this case they
-Original Message-
From: Steve Bennett [mailto:stevag...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 18 January 2011 5:17 PM
To: Markus_g
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Victorian Coastline
Would be good to come up with a general policy on administrative
boundaries and coastlines. What end result
that the
best option is to duplicate.
Ill have a check on it after he is finished.
Markus_g
-Original Message-
From: Elizabeth Dodd [mailto:ed...@billiau.net]
Sent: Saturday, 15 January 2011 6:07 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Victorian Coastline
On Fri, 14 Jan
Hello,
Someone has added coastline to the administration boundaries from the SA
border to Port Philip Bay and removed the old coastline. There edit comment
was removed malformed Victorian/SE SA coastlines and added 'coastline' tag
to administrative boundaries to form accurate coastlines
The
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:46:08 +1030
Markus_g marku...@bigpond.com wrote:
Hello,
Someone has added coastline to the administration boundaries from the
SA border to Port Philip Bay and removed the old coastline. There
edit comment was removed malformed Victorian/SE SA coastlines and
added
On 15/01/11 03:37, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:46:08 +1030
Markus_gmarku...@bigpond.com wrote:
Hello,
Someone has added coastline to the administration boundaries from the
SA border to Port Philip Bay and removed the old coastline. There
edit comment was removed malformed
@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Victorian Coastline
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:46:08 +1030
Markus_g marku...@bigpond.com wrote:
Hello,
Someone has added coastline to the administration boundaries from the
SA border to Port Philip Bay and removed the old coastline. There
edit comment was removed
]
Sent: Saturday, 15 January 2011 12:07 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Victorian Coastline
On 15/01/11 03:37, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:46:08 +1030
Markus_gmarku...@bigpond.com wrote:
Hello,
Someone has added coastline to the administration
37 matches
Mail list logo
