On 21 January 2011 15:45, Ben Last wrote:
> Sorry, I'll go back to flood surveys!
Any plans to cover the areas burnt out by fires in WA? (obviously
after they're put out otherwise smoke would obscure things)
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetm
On 21/01/11 13:03, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:11 AM, 4x4falcon wrote:
Problem with option 3 is that if nodes are the same you end up with a major
duplicate node issue and if it comes to editing either then newbies tend to
get it wrong. If the nodes are joined then you end
Does anyone know of specific areas that need pre/post-flood imagery
that HOT might be able to help with?
I think someone told me Ivanhoe was almost completely cut off, except
for one road.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-32.8945&lon=144.3025&zoom=14&layers=M
-- Forwarded message -
On 21 January 2011 13:23, wrote:
> He was just telling us that the eastern border of WA is the only one which
> is the same on the ground as in statute.
>
Presumably so that we know for sure when the cane toads cross it? :)
Sorry, I'll go back to flood surveys!
Cheers
b
--
Ben Last
Developmen
On 21 January 2011 15:23, wrote:
> I'm staying at the surveyor's house, but he's just gone out.
> The principle is that the definition is made by statute which is clear.
> Then the marks are placed by the surveyors, and regardless of error,
> that's where they stay.
> He was just telling us that
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:29 PM, wrote:
>> but while the coastline is constantly altering the admin boundary is
>> expected to remain unaltered
>
> Do you think? Surely those admin boundaries are expressed as "to the
> high tide mark" or something, not to some arbitrary coordinate which.
>
> A
On 21 January 2011 15:04, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Do you think? Surely those admin boundaries are expressed as "to the
> high tide mark" or something, not to some arbitrary coordinate which.
Not just a matter of marking high tide mark, but this is a moving
target so what is correct in 2006, may no
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:29 PM, wrote:
> but while the coastline is constantly altering the admin boundary is
> expected to remain unaltered
Do you think? Surely those admin boundaries are expressed as "to the
high tide mark" or something, not to some arbitrary coordinate which.
Anyone know?
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:11 AM, 4x4falcon wrote:
> Problem with option 3 is that if nodes are the same you end up with a major
> duplicate node issue and if it comes to editing either then newbies tend to
> get it wrong. If the nodes are joined then you end up with a duplicate way
> issue.
I w
.
>
> Can we can just confine the discussion to coastline then? As you say,
> there is unlikely to be a definitive answer for other boundaries, but
> the coast is the coast, yes?
>
The Victorian coastline changes too - especially along the limestone
Shipwreck Coast to the east of Warrnambool.
Wha
Can we can just confine the discussion to coastline then? As you say,
there is unlikely to be a definitive answer for other boundaries, but
the coast is the coast, yes?
Steve Bennett proposed the five options..
1) Administrative boundaries are as imported, and will randomly
criss-cross the coas
On 20 January 2011 18:22, wrote:
> Victorian Coastline notwithstanding guys, please remember the data under
> discussion is the ABS2006 set. It seems to have largely followed
> physical boundaries; but not quite always. It seems to have followed
> suburb boundaries; but not quite always. See the
12 matches
Mail list logo
