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

[cleary]

Sorry.   I should have written   ...    add the place node to the relation and its role would be "label".


On Fri, 5 Nov 2021, at 5:53 PM, cleary wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au