[Imports] Vermont Town boundaries from VCGI

Greg Troxel gdt at ir.bbn.com
Tue Dec 3 02:17:34 UTC 2013

Richard Welty <rwelty at averillpark.net> writes:

> On 12/2/13 2:13 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
>>> From: Andrew Guertin [mailto:andrew.guertin at uvm.edu]
>>> Subject: Re: [Imports] Vermont Town boundaries from VCGI
>>> I currently have boundary=administrative on the relations representing
>>> each town, and nothing on the member ways. There doesn't seem to be
>>> complete consensus on whether member ways should also be marked
>>> boundary=administrative, with it being inconsistently applied in the
>>> areas of neighboring states I checked. I decided to not duplicate the
>>> information.
>> The rule is to have boundary=administrative on the member ways with the
>> numerically lowest admin_level of any of its relations.
> ok i can go with that. but most of what i'm seeing does the opposite, i'm
> seeing lots of admin_level=8 tags on ways that are part of higher level
> boundaries.

Why should member ways have any boundary tags?  Once the relation has
the right value, it just seems like noise.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20131202/24b33dad/attachment-0001.pgp>

More information about the Imports mailing list