On 10-Jan-17 07:19 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote:
So you want to put these areas into OSM, fair enough. But why do we
have to break the definition of admin_level 6 when there are three
admin_levels that are currently undefined, unusable, or redundant?
That would also suggest that states and territories should be in
separate levels.
For practical purposes they perform the same duties, therefore the same
admin_level should be used.
Another option is admin_level 7 which is currently so vaguely defined
that we could come with a working definition that includes
unincorporated areas with names.
On 05/01/17 17:06, Andrew Harvey wrote:
I agree that since the area is commonly known and and referred to as
"Unincorporated Area of Far West NSW"so should be mapped in OSM and with
that name. The other name tags
In my opinion this area should be tagged as admin_level=6 since it acts
and feels like other Shires, Councils, etc. Even if those Local
Government services are administered by some other entity I don't think
that matters. The operator tag can be set as Department of Industry or
NSW Government, etc.
_______________________________________________
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
