+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
