[talk-au] Admin level boundaries
nwastra at gmail.com
Sat Mar 26 01:48:57 UTC 2016
I now see that it is easier to maintain boundary layer segments that are not superimposed over each other. I too am finding that the overlain boundaries are problematic.
> On 26 Mar 2016, at 11:20 AM, cleary <osm at 97k.com> wrote:
> I have added some of those boundaries. Where the administrative boundary
> and the national park boundary share exactly the same way, I have used
> that single way and included it in two separate relations, one for the
> administrative area and the other for the national park. If the admin
> boundary is not the exact park boundary, then separate ways need to be
> I find that having two separate ways but with one superimposed one on
> the other makes it more difficult to work out where any problems are and
> more difficult to edit later, if required. It has been my understanding
> that it is best practice to use the one way for multiple relations, if
> applicable. This is usually easiest to edit and renders exactly
> In NSW, administrative boundaries frequently align exactly with sections
> of national park boundaries, apparently deliberately. If we had separate
> ways for each, I think there would be a lot of messy duplication on the
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016, at 12:25 PM, Nev Wedding wrote:
>> There have been many new admin_level=10 administrative boundaries added
>> in NSW recently.
>> Are we expected to split and use these as shared sections for the sides
>> of national park multipolygons, etc.
>> Or is it preferable to leave the admin_level=10 (and other admin levels)
>> alone and separate.
>> I assume they are best left separate so that they can be more easily
>> updated later.
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Talk-au