On Tue, 29 Apr, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Alex Sims <[email protected]> wrote:
On 28 Apr 2014, at 1:53 pm, Michael Gratton <[email protected]> wrote:
On a related note, what's the appropriate way to map suburb-sized
areas that are partitions? A way for each suburb that share nodes
along common borders, a way for each suburb that don't duplicate
nodes along common borders, or using a single way for the border and
using a relation?
I might express and opinion about suburb mapping as I’ve done a
fair bit of “mapping for the validator” which I suppose is not
evil, unlike mapping for the renderer.
I’d prefer relations that depend on single ways, this avoids JOSM
complaining too much about duplicate ways and can also tie into the
definition in words that might belong in Wikipedia.
This (and Ian's) sounded like pretty good advice, so I have uploaded a
boundary for Randwick based on Andrew's OSM version of the ABS
SSC_2011_AUST, checked and manually adjusted by eyeballing Bing vs SIX
and the Council's PDF map, and simplified by hand.
The changeset is here:
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/22023461>, does anyone have any
comments about how it could be improved?
I noticed that as for many suburbs in SA, since I replaced the
place=suburb node previously used the name of the suburb is no longer
rendered. What's best practice here, do we really want to different
entities with the same name?
//Mike
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
