+1 for relations here. They are less-understood by most people but far more
powerful and flexible.

~Cameron

2009/2/17 Darrin Smith <bel...@beldin.org>

> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:09:15 +1100
> Franc Carter <franc.car...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ok, it seems my conversion script is now producing sane results so
> > it's time to work out what the final output should look like.
> >
> > The first question that I think we need to answer is, how do we
> > represent the
> > data in OSM, there appears to be 3 options:-
> >
> >    1. Closed ways
> >    2. Relations
> >    3. Borders with a left/right tag
>
> My vote is for #2, and I'd be strongly against the use of #3 since it's
> essentially the system #2 set out to replace and is so dependant on way
> direction and making adjoining suburbs all match directions vs
> left/right will be painful. #1 is a fine choice in city regions but I
> think it will cause ways to be too large in country regions, it also
> prevents someone telling which suburbs a boundary way lies in.
>
> > Then we need to decide on what tags to apply to the data. The raw
> > data has three fields
> >
> >   * STATE_2006     A numerical identifier for the state the suburb is
> > in
> >   * SSC_2006        An identifier provided by the ABS
> >   * NAME_2006      The name of the suburb, which may have the old
> > name in '()' after it.
> >
> > So, my initial proposal for tags is:-
> >
> >   * name=?
> >                                                         (with any old
> > name removed)
> >   * source=Based_on_Australian_Bureau_of_Statistics _data     (ABS
> > ask for this)
> >   * ABS:reviewed=no
> >   * ABS:STATE_2006=?
> >   * ABS:NAME_2006=?
> >   * ABS:SSC_2006=?
> >
> > The 'ABS' part is just a suggestion - It's a bit short for my liking
>
> My thought: Make it  au:ABS:...  that way it flags it as an Australian
> thing, and within Australia I don't think there's too many multiple
> uses of 'ABS' in this context :)
>
> > We also need to decide where these tags go - nodes, ways, relations.
> > And if we go for the left/right approach a decision on how to
>
> I think how far 'down' the tagging goes depends on how we want to
> handle the update every 4 years.
>
> - If we plan to do a point by point check each time then we probably
> need to tag each node with a unique ID number to detect changes.
>
> - If we plan to do more of a diffing of the 2 data sets and updating
> changes only then we can probably get away with just tagging the data
> to the ways.
>
> I think the 2nd option is going to work better for us in the long run
> (given how much adjusting the boundaries are looking to need anyway).
>
> Of course if we choose option #2 above then I think both ways and
> relations will need to be tagged, although the ways will only
> need the source= tag and the unique ID #.
>
> --
>
> =b
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Reply via email to