[talk-au] suburb boundaries

[Franc Carter]

Yep, sounds like a sensible approach. I'm inclined towards leaving them in
and
adding a tag as deleting them feels like 'information loss', which I have
biases
against . . . .

cheers

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Darrin Smith <beldin at beldin.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:38:40 +1100
> Franc Carter <franc.carter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> > > Futher poking around I've found the 'Unclassified SA' 'suburb',
> > > containing over 100 segments scattered all over the state, I assume
> > > most other states will have a similar object, what's the thoughts of
> > > everyone on this case? Is it really needed? (I assume it's just a
> > > category in the ABS data that's come across wholesale). Seems to me
> > > anything not in side a suburb boundary would be considered
> > > unclassified anyway?
> >
> >
> > I noticed a small number of those in NSW and decided to ignore them
> > and just put them, that might have been a bad idea ;-(
>
> LOL, Well I guess we just need to decide if a 'unclassified' suburb is
> appropriate or not. If we decide it's not we blow away the relation and
> problem solved :) Or if keep it should we somehow flag it
> slightly differently so that we know it's not an actual suburb called
> 'Unclassified', although there are weirder names around ;)
>
> --
>
> =b
>



-- 
Franc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20090321/bb3fc6a1/attachment.html>