On 14 February 2010 15:37, Richard Colless wrote:
> The ABS boundaries were defined many years ago, usually by some form of
> surveying data based on existing roads, watercourses etc.. But in a lot of
> cases, the roads which were originally used have been moved, in some cases
> by tens of metres.
Sam Wilson wrote:
So the ABS defines boundaries with coordinates, then? Rather than roads
etc. (as, say, electoral boundaries are defined)?
You're quite right, there's no reason to change the ABS data if it is,
by definition, correct. I guess I'd just been thinking that it was
probab
On 14 February 2010 11:26, Sam Wilson wrote:
> You're quite right, there's no reason to change the ABS data if it is,
> by definition, correct. I guess I'd just been thinking that it was
> probably supposed to match the roads.
Which makes it difficult to fix roads if the boundaries are always
ge
On 14/2/10 9:02 AM, John Smith wrote:
> The more I've had to deal with this the more I think it's a bad idea
> to move them to match roads. Chances are the ABS and other govt
> agencies won't accept any data we produce for QA reasons so would
> there be any real reason to improve the data if it's c
On 14 February 2010 10:58, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Ought one fix ABS administrative boundaries to bring them into line with
> roads (or nearmap, or surveys, or whatever else seems to actually be
> accurate)?
The more I've had to deal with this the more I think it's a bad idea
to move them to match ro
Ought one fix ABS administrative boundaries to bring them into line with
roads (or nearmap, or surveys, or whatever else seems to actually be
accurate)?
I'm pretty sure I've read the answer to this before, but can't find it
anymore.
Thanks!
- Sam.
6 matches
Mail list logo
