On 20 January 2011 09:59, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we're being overly precious about the quality of the ABS > imports. In many cases they're clearly meant to follow a geographical > feature, but don't do it particularly well when overlaid on the OSM > data. That makes it look like there is some deliberate distinction > between the boundary and the underlying geographical form, when in > fact there isn't. I agree, and I'll go one step further. Unless we intend to amend, edit and correct data then don't put it into OSM. Use it as a layer, or whatever, but don't clutter a wiki with static, un-usermodifiable data. In this case, the admin boundary is often clearly the coastline, or river, or feature, and we should align it appropriately. If people want the ABS data unchanged, they know where they can find it. The current situation where the admin boundary just misses sections of the coastline, is ugly and wrong. You wouldn't see if presented that way on any other map. Ian.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
