[OSM-talk] Shared nodes between non-routable objects?

[Ross Scanlon]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:59:45 +1000
Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Ross Scanlon <info at 4x4falcon.com> wrote:
> > Whilst it's very usable for regional and remote areas for which there is no data.  There is no justification for joining making admin boundaries into roads for metro areas particularly where there is Nearmap coverage.
> 
> Here are three justifications:
> - working with overlapping or near-overlapping ways is difficult in
> some editors (Potlatch, for example)

No it's not.  This is just being slack and not bothering to be accurate.

> - maintaining two ways is more work than maintaining one

The boundaries don't need to be maintained unless changed by the relevant authority.  A road can be changed at any time.

> - map users will be uncertain where the real administrative boundary
> is if it appears to follow a road, but has no clearly defined
> relationship with it. Is the boundary down the middle of the road, on
> one side, the other, or independent of it?

No, the boundary is where it is it does not have to follow the road.  If the road is re-aligned then the boundary does not necessarily move with it and has to then be separated from the road.

Have a look at the Murray River,  the correct state boundary is the southern bank but someone has changed parts of the river to be the admin boundary so when the map is drawn from the data the river appears in the wrong place.  The same happens with roads where the admin boundary is made into a highway=* and is actually of to one side or the road has been realigned.
 
> As John Smith has pointed out, actually finding out the real status of
> the boundary could be a lot of work, but it would be valuable.

Yes it would, but don't join roads to the boundaries when they don't line up with the surveyed road or on nearmap.

-- 
Cheers
Ross