[talk-au] Suburb boundaries - getting close
peter at emailross.com
Tue Feb 17 02:49:35 GMT 2009
+1 for relations for me as well, as it is the future of osm.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Cameron
<osm-mailing-lists at justcameron.com> wrote:
> +1 for relations here. They are less-understood by most people but far more
> powerful and flexible.
> 2009/2/17 Darrin Smith <beldin at beldin.org>
>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:09:15 +1100
>> Franc Carter <franc.carter at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 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
>> > represent the
>> > data in OSM, there appears to be 3 options:-
>> > 1. Closed ways
>> > 2. Relations
>> > 3. Borders with a left/right tag
>> My vote is for #2, and I'd be strongly against the use of #3 since it's
>> essentially the system #2 set out to replace and is so dependant on way
>> direction and making adjoining suburbs all match directions vs
>> left/right will be painful. #1 is a fine choice in city regions but I
>> think it will cause ways to be too large in country regions, it also
>> prevents someone telling which suburbs a boundary way lies in.
>> > 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
>> My thought: Make it au:ABS:... that way it flags it as an Australian
>> thing, and within Australia I don't think there's too many multiple
>> uses of 'ABS' in this context :)
>> > 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
>> I think how far 'down' the tagging goes depends on how we want to
>> handle the update every 4 years.
>> - If we plan to do a point by point check each time then we probably
>> need to tag each node with a unique ID number to detect changes.
>> - If we plan to do more of a diffing of the 2 data sets and updating
>> changes only then we can probably get away with just tagging the data
>> to the ways.
>> I think the 2nd option is going to work better for us in the long run
>> (given how much adjusting the boundaries are looking to need anyway).
>> Of course if we choose option #2 above then I think both ways and
>> relations will need to be tagged, although the ways will only
>> need the source= tag and the unique ID #.
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Talk-au