Sorry. I should have written ... add the place node to the relation and its role would be "label".
On Fri, 5 Nov 2021, at 5:53 PM, cleary wrote: > Ideally suburbs would have a relation for the boundary PLUS a node for > the "label node" as part of the relation. I'm not so familiar with > Victorian locations, but this example for South Albury in NSW is an > example: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5901488 > > Where there is a boundary and a separate place node, I would add the > place node to the relation and its role would be "label node". > > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 2021, at 2:15 PM, Dian Ågesson wrote: >> Hey all, >> >> I would appreciate the thoughts of the community with regards to suburb >> representations. >> >> In a recent change set >> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113355648) a node was >> introduced for Gruyere. Gruyere is on the urban boundary, but is >> technically in Metropolitan Melbourne. As such, it straddles the border >> between what could be considered a bona fide suburb, and an independent >> town. >> >> Mick has correctly pointed out that many of the other localities in the >> area are represented by both an area and a node. >> >> Is this the way all suburbs should be represented? Or is it an >> urban/rural distinction? >> >> >> >> Dian >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
