<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div>27 Jan 2020, 11:43 by dieterdreist@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div>I wonder what is the current state of admin_level on ways<br></div></div></blockquote><div>Personally I consider this to be a<br></div><div>pointless duplication of data.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I am not fan of requesting from mappers<br></div><div>doing work that is easy to automate.</div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div>in particular with respect to osm-carto. <br></div></div></blockquote><div>It is using adminstrative relations for <br></div><div>rendering.</div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div>Is there still a serious risk of immature applications that allow removal of ways without taking into account relations memberships? <br></div></div></blockquote><div>Yes, as long as duplicate tagging on<br></div><div>ways is common.</div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div>Will the borders vanish from osm-carto if we rely only on relations?<br></div></div></blockquote><div>No</div> </body>
</html>