[talk-au] Suburb boundaries - getting close

b.schulz.10 at scu.edu.au b.schulz.10 at scu.edu.au
Mon Feb 16 23:38:52 GMT 2009


Hi hi,

Firstly, having suburb boundaries will allow OSM to be even closer to a UBD replacement :).

Anyway, my vote would go for relations. Yes, they're tricky and a lot of people don't understand them but given the current OSM data model they're the right choice. My main argument for relations is that suburb boundaries have a tendency to be defined in terms of roads, creeks etc and including these existing ways will greatly reduce the processing load on OSM. Also, having 3 ways in close proximity (eg, 2 suburb boundaries either side of a road) will get rather ugly when editing. Especially in the flash editor where selecting closely spaced objects can be difficult.

Whichever data method is used though this will be a great boost to the OSM dataset, your effort is appreciated.

----- Original Message -----
From: Franc Carter <franc.carter at gmail.com>
Date: Monday, February 16, 2009 10:10 pm
Subject: [talk-au] Suburb boundaries - getting close
To: OSM Australian Talk List <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>

> Ok, it seems my conversion script is now producing sane results 
> so it's time
> to work out what the final output should look like.
> 
> The first question that I think we need to answer is, how do we 
> representthe
> data in OSM, there appears to be 3 options:-
> 
>    1. Closed ways
>    2. Relations
>    3. Borders with a left/right tag
> 
> Then we need to decide on what tags to apply to the data. The 
> raw data has
> three fields
> 
>   * STATE_2006     A numerical 
> identifier for the state the suburb is in
>   * SSC_2006        An 
> identifier provided by the ABS
>   * NAME_2006      The name of the 
> suburb, which may have the old name in
> '()' after it.
> 
> So, my initial proposal for tags is:-
> 
>   * name=?
>                                                         (with any old name
> removed)
>   * source=Based_on_Australian_Bureau_of_Statistics 
> _data     (ABS ask for
> this)
>   * ABS:reviewed=no
>   * ABS:STATE_2006=?
>   * ABS:NAME_2006=?
>   * ABS:SSC_2006=?
> 
> The 'ABS' part is just a suggestion - It's a bit short for my liking
> 
> We also need to decide where these tags go - nodes, ways, 
> relations. And if
> we go for
> the left/right approach a decision on how to
> 
> 
> -- 
> Franc
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20090217/436fe40b/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list