Until the issue of whether the OS datasets can be used under the new license/CT is resolved it seems a bit pointless doing anything like this whatever the merits might be. Especially as deleting the existing boundaries and replacing them with OS data would break the history chain and must (I assume) make reverting to the previous boundaries more difficult should it become necessary.
Kevin On 7 September 2010 22:51, Steve Doerr <[email protected]> wrote: > *From:* Ed Loach <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 07, 2010 7:46 PM > *To:* 'Steve Doerr' <[email protected]> ; > [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [Talk-GB] Dorset/Wilts county boundary wrong...is there > adefinitive source? > > Steve wrote: > > > > >> I think OS OpenData has a boundary data set. It would seem to > > >> be a prime > > >> candidate for a bulk import. > > > > >No, please, no. > > > > > At least not without someone manually checking every parish boundary in > case it is already in. The Norfolk ones are there > > > but missing the admin_level tag on the ways so appear at rather low zoom > levels[1]; where I've started creating the > > > district boundary relations (South Norfolk so far) adding the admin_level > to the ways as I go, the lines are starting to > > > disappear to only show at higher zooms (not helped by me using > administrative_level=10 rather than admin_level=10 at > > > first 'cos it's been a while since I worked on boundaries). > > > > No problem: once the bulk import has been done, a bulk delete of any > boundaries not derived from OS Opendata is done, so there is no potential > for conflict/duplication. > > > > -- > > Steve > > _______________________________________________ > 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
