[Tagging] Naming boundary ways

sylvain letuffe liste at letuffe.org
Thu Oct 4 16:13:28 BST 2012

A.Pirard.Papou wrote
>     Q1: which naming of border line piece do you consider valid and
>     which do you prefer? 
>     Q1a: Municipality1 — Municipality2? 
>     Q1b: Highest-level1 — Highest-level2 (Europe — Asia) 
>     Q1c: Municipality1 — Municipality2 (Highest-level1 — Highest-level2)
>     ? 
>     Q1d: nothing 
>     Q1e: you're inventive... 

Q1e1 : I don't consider any naming invalid, and thus I don't change what
others have done
Q1e2 : However I don't like using some strange caracters my keyboard does'nt
have like —
Q1d : And I don't personnaly add any name on a new way I've created

A.Pirard.Papou wrote
>     Q2: do you see any use for that apparently useless number? Could it
>     be omitted? 

I don't add it myself, but I still add boundary=administrative (not because
I think it is usefull, but because I've been told it helps other mappers at
identifing that a way is a boundary)

A.Pirard.Papou wrote
>     3) And we're ruled by chickens and eggs. 

No chickens ever ruled me, as of eggs, I'm less sure....

A.Pirard.Papou wrote
>    Could it be used for boundaries? 

It could, it is, and I proposed a relation type for that :

The next question being : is the data usable and used ?
The anwser hides in the egg of the next hen to rule me...


View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Naming-boundary-ways-tp5728863p5728971.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the Tagging mailing list