[talk-au] Tagging "boundary" roads with addr:*

[Dian Ågesson]

Hi Andrew,

There a few conceptual things I don't understand about how is_in would 
be implemented with regard to suburbs

I'm curious; if the border of a suburb is defined by a road; does the 
border change when the road is changed? If, for some reason, the 
boundary road was moved 10m north, does the suburbs grow/shrink 
accordingly? Is the suburb border an infinitely narrow line in the 
"centre" of the roadway, or does the road sit entirely within one suburb 
or another? What if a lanes are uneven?

If it is not bound to the roadway, and is instead "static" geometry, 
then you could have a situation where a road which is supposed to be the 
border is actually entirely misaligned with the legal border. Is_in 
doesn't cause these issues, but I think it may worsen individual 
situations by providing a misleading explanation about where a road 
actually is. I'd also be concerned about maintenance in growth areas 
where new suburbs are declared, etc.

Dian

On 2022-01-07 18:38, Andrew Hughes wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> Since I am only trying to define those that cannot be determined 
> spatially, this sounds correct to me: 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:is_in
> 
> Explanation: Yes, they do say that the use is discouraged, but that is 
> purely on the basis of boundaries being used as spatial relationships. 
> I'm looking at exactly when that is not possible. I wouldn't want to 
> tag something that clearly has a spatial relationship (topologically 
> correct) with a boundary. Then, there's not discussion aroune what to 
> do when this happens, only that others still advocate its use for such 
> a scenario.
> 
> For the record, an example of why this is needed....
> 
> We'll have a list of roads "Evergreen Terrace, Springfield" and we'll 
> have some information about the road like "Cars from Shelbyville are 
> not allowed". If we can't locate these road(s) in OSM because  the 
> topology of the road/suburb is inaccurate - we can't map it. Thus, 
> either the topology needs fixing (which I believe is impossible and I'm 
> not going to bother talking about that) or the roads on the boundary 
> can have a tag which is absolute and can be used preferentially (if 
> desired).
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Cheers,
> AH
> 
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 09:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 at 20:03, Ewen Hill <ewen.hill at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Graeme and happy new year,
> How much can you datamine from a suburb:left , suburb:right ? I would 
> suggest suburb polygons and street names only which would cover all 
> eventualities and allow for the change in the suburb area without 
> having to touch each road affected
> 
> I agree entirely & wouldn't use it myself, but was suggesting a 
> possible option!
> 
> I'd leave it as Sandgate Road by itself, but with 436 Sandgate Road, 
> Clayfield Qld 4011, & 475 Sandgate Road, Albion Qld 4010, tagged on the 
> individual buildings themselves, as they currently are.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Graeme _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220107/6b58c3a3/attachment.htm>