Hi, What are you actually trying to achieve here?
As I understand, the purpose of the original GNB update was slot in GNB names where OSM didn't already have coverage. If there is already a town/village/suburb/locality in OSM, and it is already well located, then there is no issue that I can see. What type of changes in the GNB have happened that you want to reflect in OSM? I'm really not sure how putting a locality node bang on top of a town node is going to be anything put confusing. I don't think it communicates any information at all. Ian. On 7 April 2016 at 11:30, Andrew Davidson <u...@internode.on.net> wrote: > There was an import of NSW places from the GNB database done back in 2008 > with a helpful wiki page ;-) > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NSW_Geographic_Names_Import > > I'm proposing to review these to see what's changed in the last 8 years but > I've run into a number of problems: > > 1. It would seem that the original import was not complete > 2. The nswgnb tags have not survived well > 3. The GNB has "helpfully" created entries for the address localities but > these seem to have taken on the reference numbers for the original > town/village/city. They've created new entries for the original entity but > this means that the town/village/city now has a different reference number. > 4. Sometimes the locality entry has the same location but at other times it > can be separated by up to 5km. > > Initially I thought that the multiple GNB references could be entered with > multiple values like this: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3118349777 > > but this doesn't naturally tell you how the place:nswgnb and ref:nswgnb line > up and it doesn't lend itself to adding the alt_names that are in the > database. As an alternative I'd like to use this scheme*: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/113135446 > > which requires swapping the namespace prefix around to make nswgnb the > namespace. I think this makes it clearer how the GNB categories line up and > can be extended for more names (There is at least one place in NSW with > three different variant names). > > I'm also proposing to put the LOCALITY or SUBURB entry at the same place as > the corresponding TOWN/VILLAGE/CITY etc entry (provided that it still falls > inside the admin_level 10 boundary). > > Any views on these ideas? I think the most important thing is will this be > useful for the next person who looks at this in 5 to 10 years from now? > > > *Unusually the admin_level 10 boundary for this area is called Lake Tabourie > and has a separate GNB entry: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4103653600 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
