Nev I have added some of those boundaries. Where the administrative boundary and the national park boundary share exactly the same way, I have used that single way and included it in two separate relations, one for the administrative area and the other for the national park. If the admin boundary is not the exact park boundary, then separate ways need to be used.
I find that having two separate ways but with one superimposed one on the other makes it more difficult to work out where any problems are and more difficult to edit later, if required. It has been my understanding that it is best practice to use the one way for multiple relations, if applicable. This is usually easiest to edit and renders exactly correctly. In NSW, administrative boundaries frequently align exactly with sections of national park boundaries, apparently deliberately. If we had separate ways for each, I think there would be a lot of messy duplication on the map. On Fri, Mar 25, 2016, at 12:25 PM, Nev Wedding wrote: > There have been many new admin_level=10 administrative boundaries added > in NSW recently. > Are we expected to split and use these as shared sections for the sides > of national park multipolygons, etc. > Or is it preferable to leave the admin_level=10 (and other admin levels) > alone and separate. > > I assume they are best left separate so that they can be more easily > updated later. > > Tag:boundary=administrative > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
