On 17 Aug 2009, at 21:09, Bogus Zaba wrote: > I have completed the following relations for Unitary Authority > Boundaries and put them in the Wales Wiki : Wrexham (137981), > Flintshire > (198566) and Denbighshire (192442). Now some inevitable questions:
That' good. > > 1. How should Flintshire and Denbighshire be completed out at sea? On > the Wales Wiki it says "The current Wales Boundary (08 July 2009) is > both wrong and unhelpful." So I guess I should not be using that. > Currently Unitary Authority boundary lines go out to sea traced from > the > NPE, but they do not join up with any coastal boundary. As it > happens in > this part of NE Wales, nobody seems to have made the coastline (high > water mark?) ways to be members of the national boundary relation, > although that has been done for about 70% of the welsh coastline. I did have a complete Welsh boundary at high-water but following the discussion above part of it was removed and I was waiting for the issue to be resolved and that someone else would fix it. I see the other post about counties and unitaries stopping at low-water - not sure is this answers the question for Wales itself though. > > 2. In putting together the relations for these boundaries I found > myself > splitting a lot of roads and streams into relatively short sections so > that I could then make these sections members of the boundary > relation. > Is this recognised good practice, or is it better to make a separate > boundary way which simple shares nodes with the relevant stream or > road > etc ? I prefer to lay another way between the same nodes if adding the boundary into the way would result in splitting the other feature up un-necessarily however I do add the feature to the boundary relation the boundary follows the feature for a long time (for example a river or railway line that is following for a considerable length). > > 3. In doing all this I have used the NPE layer which can be used as a > backdrop in josm and potlatch. I have realised that this NPE is not > the > same NPE as can be found in other places (eg the postcode collection > application at http://www.npemap.org.uk/). The latter is clearer > than > the tiles in josm and potlatch especially regarding parish boundaries > (which you find yourself tracing) which are nice dotted lines in the > postcode application and faded grey lines in the josm/patlatch layers. > Can the clearer (newer?) tiles be made available in the osm editing > environments ? No idea on that one. Regards, Peter > > Thanks > > Bogus Zaba > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
