Best to have both? Then take a conservative approach - where both say
desert, map it as desert.
However these do not say the names of the deserts and the boundaries
between these deserts - some of them share boundaries.
The present OSM data has a number of deserts mapped as nodes .. so they
There was some movement in QLD right at the end of last year, but I
haven't heard back from the contact after an initial exchange. I pinged
them yesterday to see if we can do anything more etc., but as has been
pointed out these things tend to take some time (which is universally
true not just
>It's never a quick process, always involves a lot of back and forth.
Plus the more agencies complete the waiver the easier it gets to
convince agency X to agree.
I think a government data collecting group in NSW has agreed, and New
Zealand's one also. Would these apply to a QLD Resources
There's no guaranteed way, but there are a few different ways to
approach it. The OSMF provided templates do a good job of explaining the
reasoning.
It's never a quick process, always involves a lot of back and forth.
Plus the more agencies complete the waiver the easier it gets to
convince agency
If you want to map the desert areas of Australia you don't need a
source. I've got Australian rainfall data on a 5km grid and I could
generate a polygon around the areas that get less than 250mm a year. I'd
be happy to release it under CC0.
If you want a more sophisticated definition of
From Daniel Silk on the Slack chat for Australian mapping:
>I would just reply and reiterate that they do not need to provide the
data under a different license, but simply sign a waiver that clarifies
some minor license differences and grants explicit permission for use.
Is there a list of
6 matches
Mail list logo
