Re: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

[Warin]

The road names are correct according to the LPI base map.
Don't see anything wrong with it - roads do change their names through 
towns, particularly at right angle turns.




The relationship 6069701 - administration boundary says its source is 
the LPI base map - yet that has no information on population
 so I assume it comes from somewhere else. This also has a postcode 
attached ..


I would think any admin boundary will have some population in it .. so 
it could not possibly be an OSM locality?
I do think it might be worth looking for these relations with admin 
boundary and locality and 'fixing' them. Anyone?


-
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biniguy,_New_South_Wales

Biniguy was a village, from a services view point, over 30 years ago .. had a 
post office, store.



On 07-Oct-17 06:39 PM, m.james wrote:

Just notice the main road coming off the highway has a different name as it 
passes by Biniguy to that of the surrounding road section.

You might want to check that out as well.



-Original Message-
From: m.james [mailto:m.ja...@internode.on.net]
Sent: Saturday, 7 October 2017 5:33 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

The village designation is coming from nswgnb, I tried to get their info for 
why it has that designation but got a 404 link from their website.

We should fall back on the osm standards which give it as a hamlet as it is not 
>1000 in population.

The second node should be removed as it is describing the same thing.

I like to have these tagged as an area around the main part of the settlement 
but they tend to not render on the standard osm rendering engine even though 
area is an acceptable method of tagging for places, you can decide which ever 
you prefer.

Not sure if we are allowed to pull the postcode info from AP or not but if we 
can you should add it as it is nice to have that info.

The relation looks like it has been edited recently, you could message the 
person working on that to get them to check it for correctness.

-Original Message-
From: Warin [mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 7 October 2017 7:59 AM
To: talk-au 
Subject: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

Hi

Using https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/unmapped#7/-29.612/150.480 there are some 
'places' that look like they can be 'improved'.


However that are some that identify obvious inconsistencies!

   Biniguy in OSM is mapped as a;

locality (no population) relation 6069701

hamlet (small population) node 113689225

village (lager population) node 113689249


Rather inconsistent! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biniguy,_New_South_Wales 
says the population 2011 was over 600.

I have moved the village node to the village rather than the farm or that name.
I think the hamlet might be deleted or should the village be deleted?
No school, shops so might be better as a hamlet.

The relation looks to define the area. Does this need a place tag at all?


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

[m.james]

Just notice the main road coming off the highway has a different name as it 
passes by Biniguy to that of the surrounding road section.

You might want to check that out as well.



-Original Message-
From: m.james [mailto:m.ja...@internode.on.net] 
Sent: Saturday, 7 October 2017 5:33 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

The village designation is coming from nswgnb, I tried to get their info for 
why it has that designation but got a 404 link from their website.

We should fall back on the osm standards which give it as a hamlet as it is not 
>1000 in population.

The second node should be removed as it is describing the same thing.

I like to have these tagged as an area around the main part of the settlement 
but they tend to not render on the standard osm rendering engine even though 
area is an acceptable method of tagging for places, you can decide which ever 
you prefer.

Not sure if we are allowed to pull the postcode info from AP or not but if we 
can you should add it as it is nice to have that info.

The relation looks like it has been edited recently, you could message the 
person working on that to get them to check it for correctness.

-Original Message-
From: Warin [mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, 7 October 2017 7:59 AM
To: talk-au 
Subject: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

Hi

Using https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/unmapped#7/-29.612/150.480 there are some 
'places' that look like they can be 'improved'.


However that are some that identify obvious inconsistencies!

  Biniguy in OSM is mapped as a;

locality (no population) relation 6069701

hamlet (small population) node 113689225

village (lager population) node 113689249


Rather inconsistent! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biniguy,_New_South_Wales 
says the population 2011 was over 600.

I have moved the village node to the village rather than the farm or that name.
I think the hamlet might be deleted or should the village be deleted?
No school, shops so might be better as a hamlet.

The relation looks to define the area. Does this need a place tag at all?


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

[m.james]

The village designation is coming from nswgnb, I tried to get their info for 
why it has that designation but got a 404 link from their website.

We should fall back on the osm standards which give it as a hamlet as it is not 
>1000 in population.

The second node should be removed as it is describing the same thing.

I like to have these tagged as an area around the main part of the settlement 
but they tend to not render on the standard osm rendering engine even though 
area is an acceptable method of tagging for places, you can decide which ever 
you prefer.

Not sure if we are allowed to pull the postcode info from AP or not but if we 
can you should add it as it is nice to have that info.

The relation looks like it has been edited recently, you could message the 
person working on that to get them to check it for correctness.

-Original Message-
From: Warin [mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, 7 October 2017 7:59 AM
To: talk-au 
Subject: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

Hi

Using https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/unmapped#7/-29.612/150.480 there are some 
'places' that look like they can be 'improved'.


However that are some that identify obvious inconsistencies!

  Biniguy in OSM is mapped as a;

locality (no population) relation 6069701

hamlet (small population) node 113689225

village (lager population) node 113689249


Rather inconsistent! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biniguy,_New_South_Wales 
says the population 2011 was over 600.

I have moved the village node to the village rather than the farm or that name.
I think the hamlet might be deleted or should the village be deleted?
No school, shops so might be better as a hamlet.

The relation looks to define the area. Does this need a place tag at all?


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au