Looks like we still have a quite a few to map,
http://wikitravel.org/en/Big_things_in_Australia
A rough count gave 134!
This list maybe incomplete, I seem to remember a big potato in Victoria.
On Thursday 03 Sep 2009 06:58:40 John Smith wrote:
> I should have also included ID numbers:
>
> 260591
I should have also included ID numbers:
260591287 Big Brook Dam
38897981The Big Crocodile
360127819 Big Rocking Horse
252048067 The Big Orange
318538346 Big Tree
360634495 Big Tree
318321519 The Big Merino
434858614 Big Bike
434856044
2009/9/3 :
> tourism=attraction
> tourism=information
You can't have 2 tags with the same key, so you need to tag 2 nodes
usually to cover both.
> I wonder how many Big Things have been tagged like:
select name from planet_osm_point where tourism='attraction' and name
ilike '%big%'
Big Brook D
In case the original question was never answered, Big Things should be
tagged:
tourism=attraction
name=*
..plus any other relevant tags like:
amenity=restaurant
amenity=cafe
shop=kiosk
tourism=information
I wonder how many Big Things have been tagged like:
tourism=attraction
name contains "big
> great opportunity here
> there's a nice giant strawberry just south of Tocumwal
> http://www.thebigstrawberry.com.au/
> and another one "on the sunshine coast"
> http://www.bigthings.com.au/s.htm
Came across this by accident this morning, someone already has tagged
the big shell
http://maps.big
Yeah - I think I would come to the same conclusion ;-)
cheers
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:35 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/9/2 Franc Carter :
> >
> > I was just curious - it means that any sort of automated matching is
> really
> > hard ;-(
>
> There may be some way to do it automatically, but I fi
2009/9/2 Franc Carter :
>
> I was just curious - it means that any sort of automated matching is really
> hard ;-(
There may be some way to do it automatically, but I figured the time
spent doing all that would be better spent doing QC on the boundaries.
__
I was just curious - it means that any sort of automated matching is really
hard ;-(
cheers
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:30 PM, John Smith wrote:
> Ok, finally found one of the boundaries I moved.
>
> http://osm.org/go/u...@rpric6-
>
> J.W. Crane Place wasn't a boundary, but is a postcode bounary.
Ok, finally found one of the boundaries I moved.
http://osm.org/go/u...@rpric6-
J.W. Crane Place wasn't a boundary, but is a postcode bounary.
I can keep digging through all my edits if you want, but I made a lot of edits.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Tal
2009/9/2 Franc Carter :
> Have you found cases where the postcode boundaries don't lie on top of the
> suburb
> boundaries ? (which would make the problem even uglier)
I have in city areas, I added boundaries to fix it.
I'll try and dig up the postcodes it occurred on.
_
I had made the assumption based on a small(ish) sample of postcodes in major
cities
that for the ABS data set, that the boundaries between adjacent postcodes
were
coincident with boundaries between suburns (sorry for the mouthful).
I noted several suburbs that consisted of disjoint areas, so I wou
2009/9/2 Liz :
> is it thought that we can draw boundaries around unique post code areas?
The thing to bear in mind is that the ABS post code boundaries aren't
accurate either, they are close approximations, it looks like AusPost
has split 2,507 boundaries into 2,623, so even those that were close
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, Liz wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote:
> > The following is a list of postcode areas considered Delivery Area by
> > AusPost, but we have no osm file for:
> >
> > 2649, 2661, 2678, 2769, 2899,
>
> all of these drew a blank on my work database search.
> actually i f
is it thought that we can draw boundaries around unique post code areas?
we could be wrong
2652 (i've been cheating off the database)
extends merriwagga > goolgowi > tabbita > boorga
and then reappears in another area
grong grong > matong > (skips a few towns) > marrar > mangoplah > old junee
then
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/9/2 Liz :
> > On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote:
> >> The following is a list of postcode areas considered Delivery Area by
> >> AusPost, but we have no osm file for:
> >>
> >> 2649, 2661, 2678, 2769, 2899,
> >
> > all of these drew a blank on my wo
2009/9/2 Liz :
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote:
>> The following is a list of postcode areas considered Delivery Area by
>> AusPost, but we have no osm file for:
>>
>> 2649, 2661, 2678, 2769, 2899,
>
> all of these drew a blank on my work database search.
> actually i found 5 people in 267
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, Liz wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote:
> > The following is a list of postcode areas considered Delivery Area by
> > AusPost, but we have no osm file for:
> >
> > 2649, 2661, 2678, 2769, 2899,
Serious now
I looked at http://map-data.bigtincan.com/postcodes.php
It
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote:
> The following is a list of postcode areas considered Delivery Area by
> AusPost, but we have no osm file for:
>
> 2649, 2661, 2678, 2769, 2899,
all of these drew a blank on my work database search.
actually i found 5 people in 2678 but their addresses were
18 matches
Mail list logo
