<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/15/2016 7:03 PM, Colin Smale
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:783bdf9168a17a86edb7c5b24ee27813@xs4all.nl"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Hi Will,</p>
<p>Fully agree with you. I also tried to contribute to that
changeset discussion. If you hadn't reverted that admin level
change, I would have...</p>
<p>Some of his ideas are on his diary pages [1] and my admin
boundary page [2].</p>
<p>Colin</p>
<p>[1] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/alexkemp/diary">http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/alexkemp/diary</a></p>
<p>[2] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Csmale/ukboundaries">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Csmale/ukboundaries</a></p>
<p> </p>
<div> </div>
<p> </p>
<p>On 2016-08-15 10:41, Will Phillips wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left:
#1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"><!-- html ignored --><!-- head ignored --><!-- meta ignored -->
<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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left:
#1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41449409">http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41449409</a></p>
<p>[2] <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41371134">http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41371134</a></p>
<p> </p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
He is active on his diary pages .. and they make entertaining
reading and are sometimes informative.<br>
<br>
<u>Area...</u> <br>
Regarding the ref:hectares ... humm while the area might be
calculated correctly for a 'flat' area .. most have slopes ... don't
know if that is officially included in area calculations :) Probably
not. <br>
<br>
There does appear to be some demand for tagging areas .. e.g.
Area_sq_m (8,164), area:ha (4,109) and others. Unfortunately the tag
'area' is a simple indication of a shape being rendered .. and it
would be confusing to use it as a numerical value. Possibly there
needs to be some provision/instruction on the OSMwiki for this? <br>
<u><br>
</u><u>Parishes .. admin boundaries etc...</u><br>
Not me! I have not dabbled in this, other than fixing some that were
broken and I had easy access to the data (not UK ones). Think Alex
has a diary entry on it with his thinking... might be a place to
indicate a different interpretation compared to his thoughts (in a
polite manner)? <br>
<br>
</body>
</html>