[Tagging] Naming boundary ways

Miloš Komarčević kmilos at gmail.com
Thu Oct 4 08:51:05 BST 2012


On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> On 10/04/12 03:17, A.Pirard.Papou wrote:
>
>> 1) While the A name= of the relation is the name of the area, such as
>> London or Wales, the possible B name has nothing to do with the area.
>> The B name can be that of a river, of a road, or the border piece can be
>> immaterial or chosen not to be represent the physical way.
>> If the border line is immaterial, the name, if any, can be chosen
>> perfectly arbitrarily and serves only to identify the border line at
>> best when you look at configuration data or on the map.
>>
>
> In these cases I tend to omit the name tag altogether. After all, the
> immaterial line doesn't really have a name; what you are talking about is
> more of an "annotation", a "note", a "description" or somesuch.
>
>
Same here. Furthermore, I have been removing names in those cases (well,
switching them precisely to notes or other non-rendered keys).



>  2) The admin_level itself is redundant in ways. It is in fact contained
>> in the boundary relations, and as it possibly has multiple values if the
>> border is for several area levels.
>>
>
> The consensus is to use the highest of all applicable admin levels. You
> are right in saying that it is redundant (as is the boundary=administrative
> tag, btw.) but it does make things easier for those users who simply want
> to draw a line on their map - they don't have to evaluate the, possibly
> broken, polygons for that.
>
>
+1

Regards,
M
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20121004/5f2235b6/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list