[Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

[Marcos Oliveira]

It's an handy and intuitive way of organizing boundaries in a neat
hierarchy visible from the database itself.

Take for example this boundary [1]. If the subarea role was deprecated then
it would be a lot harder of finding out which are its father, grandfather,
etc. relations, which would make verifying them a more tedious task.

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4172448

2015-11-26 18:51 GMT+00:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>:

> I just noticed that a lot of boundary relations have the lower ranking
> parts included as members with the "subarea" role.
> This role is documented here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary
>
> But I wonder how it got on this definition page. Was this discussed
> anywhere? I don't think it's a good idea to add all those lower entities in
> nested relations (they are already spatially structured, this is redundant
> and makes the relations more complicated for no good reason).
>
> I propose to remove this property from the definition page and move it to
> the talk page.
>
> Comments?
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Um Abraço,
Marcos Oliveira
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20151126/2a3c7149/attachment-0001.html>