[talk-au] Suburb boundaries - getting close
bluemm1975-osm at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 17 03:41:32 GMT 2009
Franc Carter <franc.carter at ...> writes:
> 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
> 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
+1 for Relations (I'm in the Darren camp on this one)
I also like Jack's suggestion on name & old_name, plus the is_in tag.
Given Darren's suggestion for au:ABS, I wonder if there are any examples of
country namespaced tags? Obviously ABS is not likely to be unique, maybe ABS_au
or Jack's abs.gov.au? I think I like abs.gov.au the best (eg.
What is the purpose of ABS:reviewed=no tag? Is it to check for obvious data
errors (like Darren pointed out for the industrial estate - assuming it's
Other than that, at this point we don't really have any other source for this
data, so how could we possibly review boundaries?
Assuming we go with the relations option, and ABS:SSC_2006 is tagged on the
relation, what unique id to we tag the individual ways with? Wouldn't most ways
be derived from 2 closed-area shapes, therefore ABS:SSC_2006 would have to be a
combination of the parents id's (which might not be unique when converted
I think once we get our import plan finalised (conversion of ways, tagging
scheme etc.) we should update the wiki and post on the Talk mailing list with
the plan, to hopefully get some comments from veteran importers (like Tiger &
the midway Canada importers).
More information about the Talk-au