On 31/08/18 17:20, Andrew Davidson wrote:
On 31/8/18 16:23, Andrew Harvey wrote:
(not sure why the split across 9 and 10...? but it looks like no data
for 9
and all suburb/localities are marked as 10, a separate discussion but
perhaps they should be 9 and smaller neighbourhoods be in 10?)
Level 9 appears to have been intended for non-ABS derived suburbs and
level 10 for ABS. What's happened is 10 has been used for suburbs.
Do we have any data for bounded localities smaller than suburbs? I
don't know of any jurisdiction that defines sub-suburb areas, so I
don't see the point of moving away from 10.
Commonwealth Electoral Boundaries (I don't think should be included
in OSM)
State Electoral Boundaries (I don't think should be included in OSM)
State Boundaries
Agree.
admin_level 6 LGAs
It looks like NSW, VIC have complete LGA coverage already aside a few
minor
differences, but NT is patchy and TAS, QLD, WA are almost
non-existent (ACT
doesn't really have LGAs it's all managed by the Territory).
Given that we have previously only had data for SA/Vic/NSW any other
data would have come from sources we were not allowed to use.
admin_level 7 is a mixed bag, but the PSMA data won't help here
That's more a problem with the rather vague definition of what level 7
is supposed to be.
Nicaragua is using it for 'Indigenous territories'. Possibly 'we' could
do the same?
suburbs/localities
NSW, VIC, SA all have pretty much complete data in OSM but there are a
number of differences with the PSMA data which should warrant
investigation
and correction.
That's a bit of understatement for Vic. I checked the Vicmap suburbs
with what's in OSM and it's not good. Currently we have ~1600 suburbs
in OSM but there are ~3000 suburbs in Vicmaps/PSMA. It would appear
that somewhere between ABS2011 and ABS2016 the number of Victorian
suburbs almost doubled.
So I guess the question is should we
I know that some people don't like having the admin boundaries in OSM.
I find that having the suburb/locality boundaries is useful
(downloading data by area and geo-referencing in Nominatim). The LGA
boundaries less so as most people don't really think very much about
their local council and it's odd to see it appear in an address for
example. But that said if you do the suburbs you might as well do the
LGAs.
My 'problems' with the admin boundaries are;
where they use another way that is also a road/river. And then some
mapper comes along and improves the road/river .. but buggers up the
admin boundary.
then I come along and 'fix it' using the LPI Base map .. and put that
source on the way.
2 things on my wish list ;
that admin boundaries don't use other 'close enough' ways already in
OSM. This would reduce the number of times that the relationships are
broken.
that admin boundaries have a source tag on there ways to say what the
source is. This means when I come along and fix a broken one my source
statement will not be confusing when looking at the relationship as
that relationship will have no source tag.
how should we do that.
Import.
Import.
Is anyone interested in working on this?
I am.
Not me.
If people are, I think it should go through the proper import process
(discuss first,
identify the process and then execute).
You're preaching to the choir here. Amen to that.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
