Re: [talk-au] Namespace for maintenance tags

[Warin]

On 17/9/20 11:40 am, Andrew Davidson wrote:

On 15/9/20 10:53 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:


1. psma:loc_pid. Where this is a stable ID that is used as a 
reference, the existing ref tag is better for this. If we want to be 
more specific then ref:psma or something like that would work. No 
need to invent new tags here when one already exists, is well 
documented and in widespread use.




I have been pondering this further and I'm wondering if these type of 
maintenance tags would be more appropriate in the note namespace. So:


note:*=*

rather than

ref:*=*

as note=* is for information for other mappers.

Any thoughts/objections/counter proposals?



notes tend to be alerts for caution?

What about using comment:*=* as these tend to be informative, perhaps 
too casual?




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Admin_level discussion for Australia

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 at 09:29, cleary  wrote:

>
> In regard to ABS data ... I understand that it was added into OSM when it
> was the only data for which we could get permission.  ABS statistical areas
> approximate suburb boundaries (perhaps 90% similarity).  In the Sydney
> suburb where I live, the ABS boundary is almost exactly the suburb boundary
> that existed more than 20 years ago (last century!) but the official
> boundary has now changed. Now that we have accurate data on
> suburbs/localities, I think we should remove references to ABS data.
>
> In regard to mapping localities ...  I don't have knowledge of the Gold
> Coast but, in NSW, I see localities as non-specific areas without precise
> boundaries and which are are smaller places within the bounded places
> usually referred to as suburbs.  If there are official boundaries for Gold
> Coast localities, then I withdraw my comments. However generally I think
> the suburbs are best mapped as areas with precise boundaries while
> localities are mapped as nodes. In rural areas, these places are often
> unpopulated and mapped as "place=locality" or one or two houses mapped as
> "place=isolated_dwelling" (both of which I have used).  In metropolitan
> areas, they can be mapped with a node "place=neighbourhood" (which I have
> used) or "place=quarter" (which I have not used).
>

For place=* yes best to use local knowledge, but for the actual
administrative regions (which is what's being proposed for import here) as
boundary=administrative, there are no gaps, so anywhere on the country has
a suburb/locality administrative regions.

It makes sense to co-mingle the place=* and boundary=administrative where
they are the same, especially for suburban suburbs, but in rural areas if
the imported region doesn't matchup with the place name, then you can
separate out the boundary=administrative from the place=*.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Admin_level discussion for Australia

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 at 09:29, cleary  wrote:

>
> In regard to ABS data ... I understand that it was added into OSM when it
> was the only data for which we could get permission.  ABS statistical areas
> approximate suburb boundaries (perhaps 90% similarity).  In the Sydney
> suburb where I live, the ABS boundary is almost exactly the suburb boundary
> that existed more than 20 years ago (last century!) but the official
> boundary has now changed. Now that we have accurate data on
> suburbs/localities, I think we should remove references to ABS data.
>

Thanks for the info!

In regard to mapping localities ...  I don't have knowledge of the Gold
> Coast but, in NSW, I see localities as non-specific areas without precise
> boundaries and which are are smaller places within the bounded places
> usually referred to as suburbs.  If there are official boundaries for Gold
> Coast localities, then I withdraw my comments. However generally I think
> the suburbs are best mapped as areas with precise boundaries while
> localities are mapped as nodes.


I'd agree with you there, & that is how I think all GC "localities" are
mapped. Not all suburbs yet have their boundaries mapped though (although
the separate PSMA discussion may achieve that?)

I have mapped boundaries in NSW and SA and I think LGA at level 6 and
> suburb at level 10 has worked well in both places so I see no reason to
> change. However I am open to something else if others think different
> levels would be better.
>

No, I agree no real overwhelming reason to change. It was just a thought
seeing that level 9 isn't used.

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Admin_level discussion for Australia

[cleary]

In regard to ABS data ... I understand that it was added into OSM when it was 
the only data for which we could get permission.  ABS statistical areas 
approximate suburb boundaries (perhaps 90% similarity).  In the Sydney suburb 
where I live, the ABS boundary is almost exactly the suburb boundary that 
existed more than 20 years ago (last century!) but the official boundary has 
now changed. Now that we have accurate data on suburbs/localities, I think we 
should remove references to ABS data.

In regard to mapping localities ...  I don't have knowledge of the Gold Coast 
but, in NSW, I see localities as non-specific areas without precise boundaries 
and which are are smaller places within the bounded places usually referred to 
as suburbs.  If there are official boundaries for Gold Coast localities, then I 
withdraw my comments. However generally I think the suburbs are best mapped as 
areas with precise boundaries while localities are mapped as nodes. In rural 
areas, these places are often unpopulated and mapped as "place=locality" or one 
or two houses mapped as "place=isolated_dwelling" (both of which I have used).  
In metropolitan areas, they can be mapped with a node "place=neighbourhood" 
(which I have used) or "place=quarter" (which I have not used).

I have mapped boundaries in NSW and SA and I think LGA at level 6 and suburb at 
level 10 has worked well in both places so I see no reason to change. However I 
am open to something else if others think different levels would be better.





On Fri, 18 Sep 2020, at 3:58 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 13:29, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> >> 
> > That part I'm not sure what the original intent was or what it means. Which 
> > ABS boundary, why are statistical boundaries even relevant here.
> 
> Could be wiped off the list & left as another "Not in Use" then?
> 
> > If there's a case for splitting suburb/localities across 9 and 10 I'm happy 
> > to hear it out.
> 
> I suppose you could say 9 for "official" suburbs & 10 for named places 
> that are only localities eg the Gold Coast has 81 "suburbs", of which 
> 52 are gazetted  as suburbs 
>  and 
> 29 as localities 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gold_Coast_suburbs
> 
> Be a hell of a job going through & checking / changing them all though!
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Graeme
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] PSMA Administrative Boundaries

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 21:25, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> On 17/9/20 5:36 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> >
> > So while I'd prefer using ref: I guess some psma specific tag
> > could be okay.
>
> Do you have a preference between ref: and note: ?
>

I can't decide, so I'm happy with whatever you or others decide. (I'd also
be fine with not including the ID at all as well)


> > So you're suggesting 1) uploading duplicate state borders, and then
> > cleanup after import or 2) doing the upload so that it immediately uses
> > the existing state borders?
>
> 1 as 2 is too complicated for my tiny brain.
>
> Except for QLD I don't expect it would take too long to replace the
> overlapping ways. QLD, on the other hand, took me a couple of evenings
> to chop off the boundaries at the state border, so it might take a while
> as there are quite a few boundaries that will have to be merged into the
> maritime boundary.
>
> Provided the outer ways have a fixme on it, it'll be easy to find the
> remaining ways that need merging.
>

I don't like the idea of uploading duplicate data to be fixed later. I took
a look in JOSM and it doesn't seem too hard to manually correct the files
to be uploaded to use the existing state border way. I'm happy to do this
manual work to get the import files ready.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] PSMA Administrative Boundaries

[Andrew Davidson]

On 17/9/20 5:36 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:


So while I'd prefer using ref: I guess some psma specific tag 
could be okay.


Do you have a preference between ref: and note: ?

So you're suggesting 1) uploading duplicate state borders, and then 
cleanup after import or 2) doing the upload so that it immediately uses 
the existing state borders?


1 as 2 is too complicated for my tiny brain.

Except for QLD I don't expect it would take too long to replace the 
overlapping ways. QLD, on the other hand, took me a couple of evenings 
to chop off the boundaries at the state border, so it might take a while 
as there are quite a few boundaries that will have to be merged into the 
maritime boundary.


Provided the outer ways have a fixme on it, it'll be easy to find the 
remaining ways that need merging.



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au