On 19/12/11 19:24, Ian Sergeant wrote:
On 19 December 2011 11:50, Ross Scanlon <i...@4x4falcon.com
<mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com>> wrote:
As I said and it's been said many times before other items should
not be attached to boundaries.
If a boundary IS a coastline, sharing a way isn't wrong. Would you
really create two ways that are fully coincident?
The original coastlines were from NASA PGS data and if they have been
deleted and/or merged to the ABS data then the coastline is going to be
deleted as well.
There is details on the wiki about separating the rivers etc from
the boundaries. Look under Australian Tagging Guidelines.
I'm sure I could find another wiki page which says the opposite. The
sharing object debate is as old as OSM.
Not what I'm talking about. If someone wants to unattach the
road/river/rail data then it suggests how to.
As for the relevance to ABS import - if a river location is derived from
non-CT data, it should be deleted as it is derived from a work that
hasn't been relicenced. This applies whether the river and the boundary
share an object or not - makes no difference.
Agree.
Cheers
Ross
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
