On 1/4/23 09:50, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Don't know if this helps. or makes it worse!
More data = good.
The fact that the data is confusing, to me, simply means that a simple
assumptions of using the high tide as the boundary for all is a problem.
Had a thought so looked at Gold
Don't know if this helps. or makes it worse!
Had a thought so looked at Gold Coast Council's online city plan, where I
know that a National Park touches the shore:
https://cityplan.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/eplan/property/41NPW429/0/184?_t=property
compared to what we have
On 29/3/23 14:30, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 at 14:05, OSM via Talk-au
wrote:
Since the coastline tag is also supposed to represent the high
water mark then I would say that they should be snapped together
(since they then represent the same feature - that is,
Apologies for a couple of errors in my previous posts:
1. DCS is acronym for Department of Customer Services (not Community Services)
2. reference to national park boundary was for Wadbilliga National Park (not
Wadbilla)
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023, at 12:14 PM, cleary wrote:
>> I'm not necessarily
Hi all, this thread has deviated lots from the initial question about high
water marks but on a broader level, it’s important to note that statewide maps
like the NSW Base Map are not the basis for legal questions. Individual
property title plans are. The statewide maps just give a good
> I'm not necessarily disputing this, but there are so many anecdotes and
> opinions being expressed on this topic. Could I ask if we have any
> source or citation for this? I mean the Department of Community
> Services doesn't even exist any longer, and doesn't sound like it
> should have
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 18:15, cleary wrote:
>
> My knowledge is limited to NSW as that is the state in which I have
> previously made enquiries. Verbal descriptions of administrative boundaries
> have not been used in recent years. Boundaries are now defined
> geospatially, with the NSW
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 17:15, cleary wrote:
>
> I'm uncertain about the terms of use of the government data but,
> generally, when reproducing another person or organisation's resources
> (images, text etc) with permission, one is required not to distort that
> resource so as to not embarrass
My knowledge is limited to NSW as that is the state in which I have previously
made enquiries. Verbal descriptions of administrative boundaries have not been
used in recent years. Boundaries are now defined geospatially, with the NSW
Department of Community Services being responsible for
On 29/3/23 14:30, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 at 14:05, OSM via Talk-au
wrote:
Since the coastline tag is also supposed to represent the high
water mark then I would say that they should be snapped together
(since they then represent the same feature - that is,
On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 at 20:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As for the administrative boundaries .. the present official view is
> that local councils cannot now sell 'land' between the high tide and low
> tide, however they have in the past.
>
> What the state of this 'land' between
On 28/3/23 20:46, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
I would advise caution with this.
Government bodies will typically hold their own GIS data for park
boundaries or administrative boundaries, and the GIS data they have
will never fully align with the coastline.
However, it is not our job to be
On 28/3/23 22:06, Little Maps wrote:
Slightly different issue… but the accuracy of governmental admin
boundaries can vary a lot depending where you are in Aus. In regional
NSW, allotment boundaries (and associated park, state forest and local
gov boundaries) as shown on the NSW gov base map
On 29/3/23 14:30, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 at 14:05, OSM via Talk-au
wrote:
Since the coastline tag is also supposed to represent the high
water mark then I would say that they should be snapped together
(since they then represent the same feature - that is,
On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 at 14:05, OSM via Talk-au
wrote:
> Since the coastline tag is also supposed to represent the high water mark
> then I would say that they should be snapped together (since they then
> represent the same feature - that is, the high water mark). This would mean
> that the
I looked at the separation of park boundaries and coastlines down in
Wilson's Prom a while ago and asked the #oceania discord at the time but
never ended up changing anything. If you look at the legal definition of
many national parks, their boundaries are defined by the high water
mark. Since
Slightly different issue… but the accuracy of governmental admin boundaries can
vary a lot depending where you are in Aus. In regional NSW, allotment
boundaries (and associated park, state forest and local gov boundaries) as
shown on the NSW gov base map (and as often used in OSM) are often
Personally I'd prefer to snap them, it makes it easier for us to maintain,
better for data consumers, and overall cleaner data.
I speculate these departmental GIS teams are creating the boundaries from
their own coastline datasets anyway, so why not just have them match OSM's
coastline?
I think
Hi,
I would advise caution with this.
Government bodies will typically hold their own GIS data for park
boundaries or administrative boundaries, and the GIS data they have will
never fully align with the coastline.
However, it is not our job to be an agent for publishing government
data.
19 matches
Mail list logo
