[Tagging] Why addr:state rather than is_in:state? (response to 2010-12-26 05:29:46)

[Colin Smale]

Surely is_in is purely geographic/geometric and can only strictly apply 
to nodes? A way can straddle a border, therefore a route relation can 
also. Ways and route relations can have "name" and "ref" tags, which are 
issued by a certain authority, i.e.are within a certain namespace. So if 
a way or route relation straddles the border of such an authority's area 
the name/ref will likely change on the border. So the concept of a way 
or route being "in" a state/country/county etc can really mean two 
different things:
*    the name/ref for the route was issued by a certain authority
*    all points (not just all nodes!) on the route are geometrically 
within the borders of a certain authority

So which one is meant by "is_in" in this case?
In the case of the name/ref, these tags could be further specified by 
the addition of some kind of indication of the issuing authority. Two 
adjoining authorities may have identically named/numbered entities and 
explicit disambiguation could be useful in some cases.
In the case of the geometrical argument, I would view an explicit 
"is_in" as a mere performance optimisation; the point is contained 
within one or more polygons which will tell you what territory it is in, 
regardless of any "is_in" tag.

Colin

On 31/12/2010 13:57, Robert Elsenaar wrote:
> Totally agree. More over, every time you use the symbol ":" in your 
> tag, you mean that the subtag is telling something more specific about 
> the maintag thats in front of it.
> This methode should be introduced more widely all over OSM to avoid 
> annoying new and unnesseccerry tags or values.
>
> Robert
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- From: dies38061 at mypacks.net
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 12:00 AM
> To: Tagging OSM
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Why addr:state rather than is_in:state? 
> (response to 2010-12-26 05:29:46)
>
> (from ceyockey) I am of the opinion that "addr:state" should only be 
> used in the context of an address, not as a standalone synonym for 
> "is_in:state", meaning that I support the use of "is_in:state" for 
> routes. (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ceyockey)
>
>
> ==ORIGINAL BELOW==
> From: Nathan Edgars II
> Subject: Why addr:state rather than is_in:state?
> Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.tagging, 
> gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.region.us
> Date: 2010-12-26 05:29:46 GMT (2 days, 17 hours and 26 minutes ago)
>
> Many route relations use addr:state to describe what state the route
> is in. Should a tag intended for addresses be used this way, or is
> is_in:state a better tag to use?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
> Tekst ingevoegd door Panda GP 2011:
>
> Als het hier gaat om een ongevraagde e-mail (SPAM), klik dan op de 
> volgende link om de e-mail te herclasseren: 
> http://localhost:6083/Panda?ID=pav_1235&SPAM=true&path=C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local\Panda%20Security\Panda%20Global%20Protection%202011\AntiSpam
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging