On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:05:32 +1030 Jack Burton <j...@saosce.com.au> wrote:
> Sorry - forgot to CC the below to the list: > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > From: Jack Burton <j...@saosce.com.au> > To: BlueMM <bluemm1975-...@yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Suburb boundaries - getting close > Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:04:16 +1030 > > On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 03:41 +0000, BlueMM wrote: > > Assuming we go with the relations option, and ABS:SSC_2006 is > > tagged on the relation, what unique id to we tag the individual > > ways with? Wouldn't most ways be derived from 2 closed-area shapes, > > therefore ABS:SSC_2006 would have to be a combination of the > > parents id's (which might not be unique when converted anyway). > > Well spotted. > > If using methods 2 or 3 from Franc's original email, presumably we'd > also need to add a sequence number (actually two since, as you point > out, each way would refer to segments of two boundaries) for each way, > since a unique boundary ID is no longer unique to the way, once you've > split it up into two or more segments. A Boundary that lies between 2 uniquely ID'd subrubs can't have a combined unique ID derived from those 2 unique ID's? The only time this poses an issue is the unlikely case where 2 suburbs share more than one common boundary. -- =b _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
