<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<link href="chrome://translator/skin/floatingPanel.css"
type="text/css" rel="stylesheet">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012-11-28 12:55, Jan-willem De
Bleser wrote :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAHgrPWLndqc5vg8DCR=RuvPboaP6Cj1H2+V_rxM3fhUoC11REg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Sander Deryckere <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sanderd17@gmail.com"><sanderd17@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Why municipalities and not part-municipalities? When you enter a village,
you get signs as these:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://1.standaardcdn.be/Assets/Images_Upload/2009/06/04/A7_BORDJE_IVH.MM.jpg.h170.jpg.280.jpg">http://1.standaardcdn.be/Assets/Images_Upload/2009/06/04/A7_BORDJE_IVH.MM.jpg.h170.jpg.280.jpg</a>
So the part-municipality is in a bigger font than the municipality. I wonder
what's your reason to choose the municipality name if you really want the
lowest admin level.</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Show me the village borders with a municipality name and I'll change
them.<br>
Send me the GPX traces of village borders and I'll map them.<br>
But they won't be boundary=administrative, nor part of the tree I'm
talking about, because there's no lower administrative entity than a
municipality (except districts of Antwerp if what I read is correct
and complete, and they should of course bear their names).<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAHgrPWLndqc5vg8DCR=RuvPboaP6Cj1H2+V_rxM3fhUoC11REg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Although I'll never add those names myself (I think it's useless), I also
don't oppose adding the names. I only hope it happens consistently.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
UK: Today, children, we will learn how to use OSM data: click on the
border of our town, they call it a relation, and learn our neighbour
towns: 58224617, 58217805, 58213970,58213967, 33002251, 172434383,
33185408, 18459510, 32900355.<br>
<br>
BE0: Today, ...<span id="result_box" class="short_text" lang="de"><span
class=""> </span></span>Liège — Verviers, Liège — Verviers,
Trooz, Chaudfontaine , Esneux, Comblain-au-Pont, Aywaille <br>
<br>
BE1: Tomorrow, ...<span id="result_box" class="short_text" lang="de"><span
class=""> Theux, Pepinster, </span></span>Trooz, Chaudfontaine
, Esneux, Comblain-au-Pont, Aywaille <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAHgrPWLndqc5vg8DCR=RuvPboaP6Cj1H2+V_rxM3fhUoC11REg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This is precisely the problem, and is the same discussion we had about
bicycle node networks - it *won't* happen consistently because it's a
made-up name.
Municipality, part-municipality, city, country... a border can border
on multiple regions simultaneously, so why should one particular type
get priority? Why "A - B" and not "B - A"? Why not prefix the name
with the word "Municipality", so that people know that the two names
are municipality names and not a different type of border?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I have presented this to tagging@osm, and I think I mentioned it on
talk-be@osm:<br>
<br>
The municipality (L8=level 8) border segments (ways between two
municipalities) should be assembled with multilinestring to form
arrondissement L7 border segments.<br>
Then, the border of the arrondissement are now a much smaller number
of L7 segments.<br>
We may do the same at higher levels.<br>
The L8 borders are tagged admin_level=8, name=municipalityA —
municipalityB<br>
The L7 borders are tagged admin_level=7, name=arrondissementA —
arrondissementB<br>
The L6 borders are tagged admin_level=6, name=provinceA — provinceB<br>
and so on for upper levels or lower levels if they exist.<br>
<br>
And then the meaningless saying "the highest admin_level wins" goes
away by itself, especially when applied to names for which there is
no reason to apply that rule.<br>
<br>
THAT is consistent, coherent, compatible, congruous, harmonious,
homogeneous, logical, solid, sound, straightforward, uniform, you
name it.<br>
<br>
But... no answer that proposition.<br>
<br>
Do you want me to apply that configuration on the borderline Liège —
Verviers?<br>
I have a test demo OSM update ready for that.<br>
<br>
We will be able to evaluate the consequences.<br>
I know one: JOSM does not support multilinestring and recursion. So,
the configuration it makes is correct but continuity and loop test
it makes will no longer exist for higher levels. That's, a pity,
but the most important test is the bottom-level one. For he upper
levels with only a few boundaries, good attention will suffice. And
the very simple program I wrote is quite capable of going down the
tree and check for continuity and loop.<br>
<br>
Any news about JOSM supporting recursion, e.g. as hiking routes use
them?<br>
<br>
We could otherwise not use multilinestring and use overlapping real
ways but I find that ugly !!!<br>
<br>
Shall I apply that test configuration?<br>
<br>
Cheers, <br>
<br>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top">André.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div style="bottom: auto; left: 127px; right: auto; top: 254px;
display: none;" class="translator-theme-default"
id="translator-floating-panel">
<div title="Click to translate"
id="translator-floating-panel-button"></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>