[talk-au] Suburbs: Nodes, Areas, or both?

[cleary]

Ideally suburbs would have a relation for the boundary PLUS a node for the "label node" as part of the relation.   I'm not so familiar with Victorian locations, but this example for South Albury in NSW is an example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5901488

Where there is a boundary and a separate place node, I would add the place node to the relation and its role would be "label node".



On Fri, 5 Nov 2021, at 2:15 PM, Dian Ågesson wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I would appreciate the thoughts of the community with regards to suburb 
> representations.
>
> In a recent change set 
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113355648) a node was 
> introduced for Gruyere. Gruyere is on the urban boundary, but is 
> technically in Metropolitan Melbourne. As such, it straddles the border 
> between what could be considered a bona fide suburb, and an independent 
> town.
>
> Mick has correctly pointed out that many of the other localities in the 
> area are represented by both an area and a node.
>
> Is this the way all suburbs should be represented? Or is it an 
> urban/rural distinction?
>
>
>
> Dian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au