<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi,<br>
<br>
This user is currently adding admin_level=10 admin boundaries,
which we use for civil parishes (or communities), to areas where
no such administrative unit exists. To me this seems problematic
because my understanding is that these are legal entities which
either exist or they don't. Additionally, it makes OSM boundary
data harder to use. If I run a query to find which boundaries a
node is within, I'd only expect real admin boundary areas to be
returned. The user is adding designation tags
(designation=non-civil_parish) to indicate they aren't real, but
this is undocumented and data users shouldn't have to check a
secondary tag to find out whether a relation is a real civil
parish or not.<br>
<br>
The aim seems to be to improve the results returned by Nominatim
and other geocoders, but surely this is the wrong way to go about
it.<br>
<br>
Here is an example of one of these non-civil parish relations
covering the whole of the City of Nottingham, where no such
administrative unit has ever existed:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6448042">http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6448042</a><br>
<br>
I have raised this issue with the user directly but the tone has
turned unpleasant and to me feels quite threatening. I accept my
initial comment suggesting that one of these relations should be
deleted could have been worded much more tactfully, but I don't
feel in justifies his aggressive responses since. I was frustrated
at finding one of the these non-existent boundaries covering my
local area with an inaccurate name.<br>
<br>
Will<br>
<br>
On 15/08/2016 08:39, Colin Smale wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:37081cadbff609db0a90d98e2d416dcd@xs4all.nl"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I noticed a number of new admin boundaries have been tagged
with ref:hectares=* with the numeric value giving the area of
the entity in hectares. This feels to me like an inappropriate
use of "ref" and also redundant as the area can be calculated
simply from the geometry anyway. When I queried this with the
mapper (user alexkemp) via a changeset discussion [1] I got the
following response:</p>
<p><span>"This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy
mapping too be able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank
you for your interest in my mapping. -Alex Kemp"</span></p>
<p><span>Any thoughts about the tagging?</span></p>
<p><span>Any thoughts about engaging the user? There is also a
discussion on another one of his changesets where he
unilaterally diverged from the established tagging [2].</span></p>
<p>Colin</p>
<p>[1] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41449409">http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41449409</a></p>
<p>[2] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41371134">http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41371134</a></p>
<p> </p>
<div> </div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>