<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19/1/21 2:50 pm, Andrew Harvey
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAD5VjstKVSY0M-TZnxCRgD9Z=2Szs9C8rXk9gkvnc4CgwmZrBg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at
11:48, cleary <<a href="mailto:osm@97k.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">osm@97k.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
As with other boundaries, I'd prefer to keep administrative
boundaries separate from natural features even where they
approximate and may once have precisely aligned. I'd like
to see administrative boundaries consistent with the
authoritative government source/s while natural features
such as rivers, coastline etc. are mapped from satellite
imagery. Even where coastline erodes or changes in other
ways, I think the administrative boundaries in OSM should
remain unchanged until the relevant government authority
redraws them.<br>
<br>
In regard to high-water and low-water marks, I defer to
others with better knowledge.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In my opinion, where the boundary is defined by the
natural feature (coastline, river, road centerline etc) then
the boundary way should be snapped (share nodes) with the
natural feature. This provides the most accurate
representation and encodes the "defined by the natural
boundary" information which would otherwise be lost. As the
coastline/river etc changes then the boundaries are kept up
to date because they have shared nodes, this is a feature,
not a bug.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is in contrast to your preference cleary. The PSMA
and other government datasets aren't the exact boundary
definition, only a digital representation of it, if we have
a better coastline or river data we should use ours.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>OSM data is also not exact. So I don't think claims of OSM being
more exact than other data is an argument I would make ...
considering the number of 'inexact' OSM data I come across. And
yes I correct it where I can. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAD5VjstKVSY0M-TZnxCRgD9Z=2Szs9C8rXk9gkvnc4CgwmZrBg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Of course this is all based on that assumption about what
defines the legal boundary, but I doubt it is the GIS files
the government and it's 3rd parties (PSMA) produce. Phil's
comments seem to backup this claim too.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Looks like the area of NSW that does not conform to the PSMA/DCS
Base map (I think those are both the same) is simply around Sydney
and Newcastle ... so I think I'll change those and be done. All
the rest looks to use the PSMA data.... which looks to be the low
water mark and that is not mapped in OSM (yet)... would be
difficult to map and given the number of contributors willing to
map it ... it is never going to be done. So you my way of thinking
it is the PSMA data that is the way forward. <br>
</p>
</body>
</html>