ldp at xs4all.nl
Tue Mar 2 02:15:21 GMT 2010
Peter Reed wrote:
> It may be a bit “belts and braces”, but in my view it’s also best to tag
> the ways themselves as boundary=administrative and admin_level=x number
> as well as tagging the relation. But that’s just because I have an
> irrational fear of accidentally deleting a whole relation and never
> being able to recreate it all. I suspect it’s not really necessary.
I'd rather see this practice continued, and it's also documented exactly
this way on the wiki:
> Somebody may put me right, but I think the left-boundary and
> right-boundary stuff was an early way of approaching this before all
> problem of the hierarchies became apparent. I found it raised other
It was. I've never used it, as it's impractical and limited and
relations had been invented by the time I joined OSM.
> On the way itself, adding boundary=admin covers all the combinations. If
> the way is part of more than one boundary at more than one level then
> admin_level=x;y seems best practice. After that each relation can cover
> details like names, and anything else that is unique to each relation.
boundary=administrative + admin_level=<highest order only>
Oh, and please consider the use of type=multipolygon relations for these
boundaries, and not the superfluous type=boundary variant.
More information about the Talk-GB