[talk-au] Victorian Coastline

4x4falcon info at 4x4falcon.com
Mon Jan 24 09:46:05 GMT 2011

On 24/01/11 07:10, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Ian Sergeant<inas66+osm at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Having a separate layer may be appropriate for data we are considering
>> importing to OSM that will never need to be user modified.  Data in
>> this category is better combined with OSM as a post-processing step.
>> I don't believe it was ever the intention for the ABS import to fall
>> into this category.
> Well said.
>> Option 1 as I've said in the previous emails, is without precedent in
>> cartography, is ugly, and is likely a misrepresentation of the actual
>> admin boundary for no reason I can see other than to preserve a third
>> party data source.
> Agreed.
>> Options 4 and 5 just entirely misrepresent the boundary.
> My thought was that from a cartography perspective it might look
> better. For example, Melway renders administrative boundaries on one
> side or other of roads and rivers. (Although, come to think of it,
> they may be indicating who owns the road or river...)
>> Options 2 and 3 are the only ones that make sense by my reasoning.
> Cool. Now, who would like to offer opinions on the choice of which?
> Steve
Option 4 or 5 by my reasoning are the only one's that make sense.

Don't duplicate nodes or ways and don't join physical to non-physical.

I'd suggest that we use parallel ways with the admin boundary outside 
the coastline.  It only has to be just outside so that either way (or 
nodes on the way) can be easily selected in Potlatch as that's the 
lowest common denominator.

When I say just outside the two nodes can be immediately side by side 
(infact touching), they do not need to be metres apart, so that there 
are two distinct nodes.


More information about the Talk-au mailing list