[talk-au] Effect of license change
inas66+osm at gmail.com
Wed Mar 28 03:29:09 BST 2012
On 28 March 2012 13:03, Mark Pulley <mrpulley at lizzy.com.au> wrote:
> 1. Should we import the new ABS boundaries now (as the old ones will go),
> then use this data to create a new coastline? (This will also be useful in
> recreating rivers/creeks that currently use ABS data - although it looks
> like there won't be time before April 1st to do this.)
If the current timetable is maintained, then this isn't going to be a
practical solution. During the time that the deletion is taking place, it
may not even be practical for reasons of possible conflicts.
However, don't forget that the coastline shape files are generated as a
separate process right now, and I'm hoping that we won't go through the
process of recreating those which flood half the world. I'm kinda assuming
worst case that someone will simply insert PGS data into the missing
sections before regenerating them. This should give us more time to do the
right thing here.
This is why my thinking is that there are other priorities over coastlines.
Also, have a look at the AGRI data for rivers and creeks outside of urban
areas. It appears better than the ABS data in most cases I have looked
at. It is good for coastlines too.
2. Should we undelete the previous ways that formed the coastline (as in
> some areas these were deleted when the ABS data was incorporated into the
> coastline)? (I don't know if the old coastline data is compliant or not.)
> (Should we also do this for the state boundaries?)
No coastline was automatically deleted when the ABS2006 data was imported,
so its all a lovely mangle of moves, inserts, splits, original PGS, yahoo,
ABS, bing and nearmap.
Finding nicely deleted ways is rare, and pulling back older longer versions
of trimmed ways via the API I've found to be extraordinarily difficult.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-au