Yep, sounds like a sensible approach. I'm inclined towards leaving them in and adding a tag as deleting them feels like 'information loss', which I have biases against . . . .
cheers On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Darrin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:38:40 +1100 > Franc Carter <[email protected]> wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > > > > Futher poking around I've found the 'Unclassified SA' 'suburb', > > > containing over 100 segments scattered all over the state, I assume > > > most other states will have a similar object, what's the thoughts of > > > everyone on this case? Is it really needed? (I assume it's just a > > > category in the ABS data that's come across wholesale). Seems to me > > > anything not in side a suburb boundary would be considered > > > unclassified anyway? > > > > > > I noticed a small number of those in NSW and decided to ignore them > > and just put them, that might have been a bad idea ;-( > > LOL, Well I guess we just need to decide if a 'unclassified' suburb is > appropriate or not. If we decide it's not we blow away the relation and > problem solved :) Or if keep it should we somehow flag it > slightly differently so that we know it's not an actual suburb called > 'Unclassified', although there are weirder names around ;) > > -- > > =b > -- Franc
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
