Tom Hughes wrote: > On 19/04/10 17:18, Chris Hill wrote: > >> Each boundary needs to share nodes with adjacent ones. County and >> district boundaries will also need to share nodes, so the process of >> loading them individually might be quite tedious, and would involve >> dealing with any existing boundaries. Working on improving county >> boundaries might be a good place to start. > > Ideally they also need to be done as relations and share ways with > adjacent ones. Indeed it would be good if they shared ways with any > existing features (such as rivers) where appropriate...
But well mapped rivers don't have ways down their middle ... So the general rule SHOULD still be to provide linear features suitable for a particular job rather than trying to reuse something which may only be roughly appropriate. But then I don't accept that merging ways just because they have the same xy coordinates is correct anyway. You need the ability to move each feature individually to allow for changes in them over time. Even more important, we need a way to maintain historic information such as '1995 boundary' where later boundaries are different. So including OS data on its own 'layer' with it's own set of ways seems much more correct to me. The same with similar data from other countries. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
