[Tagging] Tagging request: unnecessary admin_level tags

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-03-10 17:41, André Pirard wrote:

> * "ceremonial" Berkshire [1] that is not administrative, has no level and yet contains administrative "councils"
> Berkshire itself, however, is not a subarea of a higher level but it could
> 
> * Relation Bracknell Forest (113682) [2] as subarea
> * Relation Reading (115074) [3] as subarea
> * Relation Slough (117097) [4] as subarea
> * Relation West Berkshire (116938) [5] as subarea
> * Relation Windsor and Maidenhead (111014) [6] as subarea
> * Relation Wokingham (114311) [7] as subarea

In an administrative sense his is a logical error. The UAs should not be
a subarea of the ceremonial county. However in a geometrical sense it is
not wrong of course, although you could consider it redundant. 

A ceremonial county boundary is defined using a different process to
administrative counties, and in theory there can be temporary divergence
(if the admin boundary is changed by law and it takes a while for the
ceremonial county to catch up) or, indeed, permanent divergence (such as
County Durham which is split between two admin counties). 

I would be in favour of removing the subarea links in the case of the
Berkshire UAs. 

A ceremonial county has no level because it doesn't need one - there are
no ceremonial entities at a higher or lower level. 

Colin 

Links:
------
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/52411
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/113682
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/115074
[4] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/117097
[5] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/116938
[6] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/111014
[7] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/114311
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180310/2417bd7e/attachment-0001.html>