[Tagging] Boundaries for suburbs

Josh Doe josh at joshdoe.com
Fri Feb 25 05:10:36 GMT 2011

I am interest in knowing the best way to do this as well. I'm working
on mapping my area, which is called Burke Centre, which is further
divided into five "neighborhoods", and those are broken down into a
further 65 "clusters". The one cluster I've labeled is just a way:

I didn't even think to give it a place tag!

Sorry, not much feedback to give, but interest in others opinions!


On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Tyler Gunn <tyler at egunn.com> wrote:
> What is the "proper" way to tag a boundary for a suburb?  I'm trying to avoid using "place=suburb" nodes as they don't accurately capture the boundaries of the neighbourhoods I'm attempting to map.
> I've been playing around with this in my area and came up with two examples:
> Example One:
> - "place=suburb" node central to neighborhood:  http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1168219909
> - Boundary relation with the the "place" node marked as a label: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1438874; included the place attributes on the boundary as well.  Not sure if required.
> An example of how I've attempted this is as follows.  At this zoom level, Mapnik correctly renders a label for the suburb,
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.80617&lon=-97.18193&zoom=16&layers=M
> Zooming in once more reveals TWO labels for the area:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.80617&lon=-97.18193&zoom=17&layers=M
> See above links for the node and relation in my example.
> It's clear that when you zoom in the larger label is from the place node, and the smaller one is from the boundary itself.
> Mapnik seems to render appropriately.
> Example Two:
> Another attempt I made used the scheme:
> - "label" node central to the neighborhood: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/499644122
> - Boundary relation with just administrative level stuff in it: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1438875
> Here you can see that the neighborhood label renders much smaller
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.81031&lon=-97.16204&zoom=15&layers=M
> I'm inclined to think that example Two is more correct, but I have to say I like the larger more prominent labels of Example One.  I know, probably not good to map for the renderer.
> Opinions are appreciated!
> THanks!
> Tyler
> --
> Tyler Gunn
> tyler at egunn.com
> http://www.egunn.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

More information about the Tagging mailing list