[talk-au] Wither Sydney suburb boundaries?

[Ian Sergeant]

On 29 April 2014 11:02, Alex Sims <alex at softgrow.com> wrote:

> I’d prefer relations that depend on single ways, this avoids JOSM
> complaining too much about duplicate ways and can also tie into the
> definition in words that might belong in Wikipedia.

Yes.  I general I do too.

However, we should only use the way when it does represent the
boundary, not because it happens to physically coincide with it.

Usually this is apparent from the data.

> If appropriate ways do not exist, then create ways can be untagged or have a
> “ref=“ tag to indicate what they mean e.g. “Centreline of Smith Road” or
> “Southern side of Smith Road” etc that corresponds to their actual
> definition. Then build the relation (suburb) and super-relation (Postcode,
> LGA area) etc on top of these.

I agree we can build the relations on these.  Super-relations aren't
well supported, and I see no need for them here.  The LGA should be
separate relation utilising the same ways.   This is the only way I've
seen it done, and it works well.

Postcode relations?  Well, if you are keen.  However at least as far
as Sydney goes, each suburb belongs to a single postcode, and I think
it works well to just be a appropriate tag on the suburb relation.

> As to the type of relation as “boundary” or “multipolygon” I’ve still not
> figured out which is best.

No winners here.  Even the validators disagree.  I've been known to use both.

Ian.