Martin wrote: > >>http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/26450045 > > >>I think there will be a polygon for Essex, thus the above node can > simply > >>be deleted. This is the case in a lot of similar cases, as more exact > >>data is now available."
Ed Avis replied: > It has been discussed and agreed on this list before that these > nodes can be > junked now that we have county boundaries as polygons. So please > go ahead. In case it was also a contributory factor, the two Essex boundary relations (administrative and ceremonial) weren't closed - I've just joined the ends together so they should be OK now. This might also fix Cambridgeshire but I haven't checked those relations with the relation analyser. Links: Fixed here: http://osm.org/go/0EQLGf@WA-- Essex relations analysed from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Essex I have not deleted the Essex county node: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/26450045 as I wasn't sure whether the gns information was something that first needed moving to one or both of the Essex relations. Ed _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
