[Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

[Kovoschiz]

>would instead be distinguished by additional tags e.g.
`boundary=administrative + administrative=police`

New `boundary=*` relations (there are a lot of values
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/boundary#values) could be proposed
for these purposes if warranted. Don't adopt `boundary=administrative` for
these other uses. 


Martin Machyna wrote
> Just to add to this. I agree that there needs to be a cut off. I would
> suggest that as long as the area has clearly defined boundaries (in
> accessible official documents) and it was defined or is actively used by
> country's administrative officials or agencies then that would constitute
> for accepting it.
> 
> Since these areas often don't fall into exact hierarchy they would not
> have
> `admin_level=*` tag, but would instead be distinguished by additional tags
> e.g. `boundary=administrative + administrative=police`.
> The advantage of this would be that all the areas used for administration
> would be in one place instead of arbitrary split into many individual
> tags.
> And would also preserve consistency, as some countries are already using
> statistical and cadastral regions under administrative tagging.
> 
> "_Administrative boundaries are intended for the general public's everyday
>> use, not for specialists._"
> 
> I don't think that OSM is only for general public and not for specialists.
> In fact, it is already used by specialist cartography companies and
> startups. And OSM could even be used by state administrations in the
> future
> as well. (Or whoever wants to work with government data visualization)
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 08:39, Colin Smale 
> <colin.smale at xs4all.nl
>>
>  <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>> wrote:
>> I would suggest a filter that the area needs to be formally defined,
>> possibly by some level of government. I agree that whether or not there
>> is any active form of local government is not a prerequisite. But we
>> need to draw the line somewhere.... If a group of neighbours got
>> together and said "our area is called Homesville" would that qualify? If
>> a company with a huge plant divided the campus into North, South, East
>> and West with Regional Managers, it is using the areas for
>> "administrative purposes" but I would not expect this to be reflected in
>> OSM as admin boundaries. As with everything in OSM it should be
>> "independently verifiable" which
>> implies there should be some publicly accessible single source of truth,
>> i.e. the definition of the area is written down somewhere that Joe
>> Bloggs or I could access freely. In the UK there are multiple hierarchies
>> of geographic areas, for widely
>> differing purposes, that frequently (but not always and not necessarily)
>> share borders. For example Police Regions are based on traditional
>> counties (which are not "administrative") with lots of anomalies. They
>> are subdivided into districts. Calling these areas
>> "boundary=administrative" instead of "boundary=police" would cause
>> confusion! The use of admin_level=* allows a proper hierarchy to be
>> defined, but is
>> currently only used with boundary=administrative. If this concept is
>> extended into (for example) boundary=police, you enable a parallel
>> hierarchy, which reflects real life much better and keeps things clearer
>> for both mapper and user.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list

> Tagging@

> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging





--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html