[talk-au] [Fwd: Re: Suburb boundaries - getting close]

Darrin Smith beldin at beldin.org
Wed Feb 18 06:34:48 GMT 2009


On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:05:32 +1030
Jack Burton <jack at saosce.com.au> wrote:

> Sorry - forgot to CC the below to the list:
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> From: Jack Burton <jack at saosce.com.au>
> To: BlueMM <bluemm1975-osm at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Suburb boundaries - getting close
> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:04:16 +1030
> 
> On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 03:41 +0000, BlueMM wrote:
> > 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 anyway).
> 
> Well spotted.
> 
> If using methods 2 or 3 from Franc's original email, presumably we'd
> also need to add a sequence number (actually two since, as you point
> out, each way would refer to segments of two boundaries) for each way,
> since a unique boundary ID is no longer unique to the way, once you've
> split it up into two or more segments.

A Boundary that lies between 2 uniquely ID'd subrubs can't have a
combined unique ID derived from those 2 unique ID's? The only time this
poses an issue is the unlikely case where 2 suburbs share more than
one common boundary.

-- 

=b




More information about the Talk-au mailing list