On 24/01/11 07:10, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Ian Sergeant<[email protected]> 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 believe it was ever the intention for the ABS import to fall
into this category.
Well said.
Option 1 as I've said in the previous emails, is without precedent in
cartography, is ugly, and is likely a misrepresentation of the actual
admin boundary for no reason I can see other than to preserve a third
party data source.
Agreed.
Options 4 and 5 just entirely misrepresent the boundary.
My thought was that from a cartography perspective it might look
better. For example, Melway renders administrative boundaries on one
side or other of roads and rivers. (Although, come to think of it,
they may be indicating who owns the road or river...)
Options 2 and 3 are the only ones that make sense by my reasoning.
Cool. Now, who would like to offer opinions on the choice of which?
Steve
Option 4 or 5 by my reasoning are the only one's that make sense.
Don't duplicate nodes or ways and don't join physical to non-physical.
I'd suggest that we use parallel ways with the admin boundary outside
the coastline. It only has to be just outside so that either way (or
nodes on the way) can be easily selected in Potlatch as that's the
lowest common denominator.
When I say just outside the two nodes can be immediately side by side
(infact touching), they do not need to be metres apart, so that there
are two distinct nodes.
Cheers
Ross
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
