On 20 January 2011 14:58, <ed...@billiau.net> wrote: > if the AS data is melded with other stuff in OSM then we have great > difficulty in amending / updating / editing it. > you mention "another layer" but this isn't easily available
I can't really see where the difficulty arises. We can simply decide that where the admin boundary corresponds to the coastline, then we amend the imported administrative boundary data to follow the best source of information we have for the coastline at that point. Having a separate layer may be appropriate for data we are considering importing to OSM that will never need to be user modified. Data in this category is better combined with OSM as a post-processing step. I don't believe it was ever the intention for the ABS import to fall into this category. On 18 January 2011 17:46, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote: >Here are five options: >1) Administrative boundaries are as imported, and will randomly criss-cross >the coastline (current situation) >2) Admin boundaries are on the same way as the coastline >(natural=coastline;boundary= administrative;admin_level=8...) > 3) Admin boundaries are colinear with the coastline, but on a different way > (natural=coastline, than a separate, colinear way with boundary=administrative;admin_level=8...) > 4) Admin boundaries are parallel with the coastline, inside it. (How far?) > 5) Admin boundaries are parallel with the coastline, outside it. (How far?) Options 2 and 3 are the only ones that make sense by my reasoning. Option 1 as I've said in the previous emails, is without precedent in cartography, is ugly, and is likely a misrepresentation of the actual admin boundary for no reason I can see other than to preserve a third party data source. Options 4 and 5 just entirely misrepresent the boundary. Ian _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
