[talk-au] NPWS landing sites task

Sebastian S. mapping at consebt.de
Sat Jan 11 12:08:35 UTC 2020


I use a node for most.
Only if there is a distinct clearing in the middle of nowhere or a marked helipad then I use an area.

On 11 January 2020 8:56:01 pm AEDT, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 17:56, Graeme Fitzpatrick
><graemefitz1 at gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Question re this Map Roulette task, thanks.
>>
>> I take it these details have come from a NPWS list of some form that
>says
>> there is a landing site at "this" spot.
>>
>
>Yes that's right.
>
>
>> So, even if it shows as just a patch of bare ground, we tag it as a
>> landing site?
>>
>
>This dataset is saying that the patch of bare ground is a landing site,
>either an emergency one or actual helipad. Remember we're not just
>mapping
>any available patch of bare ground as an emergency landing site, only
>those
>which NPWS have designated as emergency landing sites.
>
>
>>
>> Node or area?
>>
>
>Up to you both are fine, but unless there is some kind of boundary you
>can
>see I'd just go with a node.
>
>
>>
>> Of the few I've looked at, one was a very discernible flattened out
>square
>> of dirt which I tagged as an area, another was just a clearing in the
>> forest so I put a node there, while the third was just a spot in an
>open
>> paddock.
>>
>> & it would appear that emergency=landing_site doesn't render in any
>way -
>> does that matter?
>>
>
>That's okay, typically something only starts getting rendered by maps
>and
>apps once it has some usage, so actually mapping it helps justify
>getting
>it into maps and apps.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20200111/48bb6262/attachment.htm>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list