[Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Nov 5 17:43:49 UTC 2013

2013/11/5 Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com>

> I'm surprised you still have such questions in Germany. Your
> description is not clear since you don't explain what is on the way
> and what is on the relation.

it shouldn't matter. Mostly you don't need a relation at all (if not to
reduce redundancy by overlapping ways), as long as there aren't
enclaves/exclaves involved. Actually the ways don't have to be any tags at
all (IMHO), but boundary=administrative surely helps to reduce destruction
by mappers with less capable editors (those that don't expose relations).

> But I can tell how it *should* be : on
> the boudary way : put the highest admin level (thus, with the lowest
> numerical number). And create one relation per admin_level, obviously.

for which admin levels? For all admin levels there would be if it wasn't an
exception? If they are admin_level=6 and there is no 8 in this case? There
is a similar case with Bremen, Hamburg and Berlin, which are level 4 (and 6
and 5?). I'd also use distinct relations for admin_level=6 and 4 in this
case, but this is disputed in the German comunity.

> For the "county free big city", simply don't create a relation with
> admin_level 6 but keep only the one exclusively for admin_level 8.

-1, as they are at the same level as a county (or Berlin/Hamburg/Bremen is
at the same level as a "Bundesland") they should definitely be
admin_level=4 (or 6 in Flos example), but the question is if we should also
make a relation with admin_level=6 or 8. IMHO yes.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20131105/310afa6e/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list