[talk-au] NPWS landing sites task

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks fellas!

Back to it, then :-)

Graeme


On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 22:08, Sebastian S. <mapping at consebt.de> wrote:

> 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/20200112/1057929d/attachment.htm>