[talk-au] Suburb boundaries - getting close

Peter Ross 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.
>
> ~Cameron
>
> 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 #.
>>
>> --
>>
>> =b
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>




More information about the Talk-au mailing list