[Imports] Vermont Town boundaries from VCGI

Elliott Plack elliott.plack at gmail.com
Mon May 5 17:17:56 UTC 2014

Martin, thanks for pointing that out. I should clarify. I'm not against
this import so long as the community thinks boundaries are good for OSM. As
for the place=* tags, if there isn't a conflict in placing them both on the
boundary and a node, then so be it.

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com
> wrote:

> 2014-05-04 20:59 GMT+02:00 Elliott Plack <elliott.plack at gmail.com>:
> In my experience, place=hamlet,village,town,city are *better placed as
>> nodes* at the boundary centroid, rather than with ways representing the
>> boundary. Mapnik and Mapbox use the nodes rather than the boundary lines to
>> render. I am pretty familiar with place=* tags. Importing the boundaries
>> are nice in terms of getting that data out there for all to see, but for
>> place mapping consider adding nodes at the centroids.
> I think that both are valueable information, a place polygon (not to
> confuse with the administrative boundary, which often incorporates also
> fields, forests etc.) could be used to describe the area of the settlement
> (shape and size) and the place node can be used to indicate the more or
> less obvious centre point (e.g. for routing without a specific address, for
> low scale maprendering / labeling etc.).
> As all settlements do have a spatial extension I fail to understand how
> omitting this would be "better".
> cheers,
> Martin

Elliott Plack
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20140505/b7357815/attachment.html>

More information about the Imports mailing list