Peter Miller wrote: > > 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 > > OK, Denbighshire & Flintshire now have completed boundaries with a low water seaward boundary line, traced from NPE.
I was going to create this as a natural feature but in the end could not find a preset set of tags that seemed to fit and not feeling quite confident enough to invent my own, I just made this line an administrative boundary and then made it part of the relevant relations. Please tell me if anybody thinks this is wrong. I am on holiday for 2 weeks and plan to carry on with Conwy, Gwynedd and Anglesey when I get back. Bogus Zaba _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
