On 21-Dec-16 04:19 PM, Warin wrote:
On 21-Dec-16 04:09 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote:
On 2016-12-21 15:57, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
Just want to point out the advice from the wiki:
/Don't map your local legislation, if not bound to objects in reality/
/Things such as local traffic rules should only be mapped through the
objects which represent these rules on the ground, e.g. a traffic sign,
road surface marking. Other rules that can not be seen in some way
should not be mapped, as they are not universally verifiable./
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unincorporated_area
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unincorporated_area>
Can you physically define it? Yes
From survey? .... maybe.
I think getting into the details of /who/ or /what/ administers
something is irrelevant; or at least highly marginal compared to the
/is
it ground truthable?/ parts of it.
Straw men seem to be popular this afternoon. The question is not
whether or not you map an unincorporated area but how should you map it?
I'm saying that using an admin_level 6 boundary (which is supposed to
enclose an LGA) is not the correct way to map these areas. They
should be mapped by mapping all of the LGAs. By doing so the
unincorporated areas are then represented as those within the
admin_level 4 boundary but outside of any admin_level 6 boundary.
Then how do you then separate out the TWO 'unincorporated areas' in
NSW ??
:-[
Opps .. line on a map that does not represent what I though it did ....
only one in NSW... on the mainland.
Victoria looks to have a number of them though .. so I think the basic
question is valid.
How are 'unincorporated areas' to be entered into OSM if not through
level 6 boundaries ... I note that they share the boundaries of other
level 6 entries. It would be simplest and easiest to accept them as
level 6, in the same way that territories are the same level as states.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
