Hi Dian,
I have an interested in mapping what I call, for want of better
terminology, fuzzy names or sense-of-place and comment in that specific
regard.
In summary: if the suburb has a defined boundary, use an area, if it
doesn't use a node. I would certainly NOT however use both to represent
the same suburb. From experience with Russian cities, that makes if very
difficult to make maps without pre-processing OSM data to remove
duplicates. For things like airports and islands where this often
happens accidentality due to the evolution of the map or simple
misunderstanding, I can and do remove the node and merge any extra info
onto the area.
I would comment that from my understanding, Australian suburbs are
somewhat unusual in often having defined admin/postal boundaries. A more
common situation is a "sense of place" that can really only be mapped
with a node. As an example, my UK home town has an area mapped as a
suburb called the Weston Estate. In the 1930s(!) it was a defined new
housing development. Everyone know where it is, north of the river and
to the west of the road out of the valley. But does it include later
development? Does it include the older houses and a couple of farms?
Hard to say and who you talk to gets a slightly different answer. So
dangerous to map an area because then the map is making the landscape.
Perhaps this is the case with Gruyere? (I genuinely don't know).
If anyone has an interest in sense-of-place mapping, I've experimented
with is_in:* tags to map physiological regions, often historic but still
relevant or loosely geographic. The idea being to end up with a point
cloud that can then be processed according to need. I find that if you
ask someone who lives there, "Are in X?", they can give a straight and
usually consistent yes/no answer. But if you ask "And where does it
end?", you'll get either a very vague answer or a look of panic. But I
am wandering off topic, so will leave it there.
Mike
On 2021-11-05 04:15, Dian Ågesson wrote:
Hey all,
I would appreciate the thoughts of the community with regards to
suburb representations.
In a recent change set
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113355648) a node was
introduced for Gruyere. Gruyere is on the urban boundary, but is
technically in Metropolitan Melbourne. As such, it straddles the
border between what could be considered a bona fide suburb, and an
independent town.
Mick has correctly pointed out that many of the other localities in
the area are represented by both an area and a node.
Is this the way all suburbs should be represented? Or is it an
urban/rural distinction?
Dian
_______________________________________________
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
