[Talk-GB] Administrative boundaries and parent/child relations

[Ed Loach]

In my opinion, it should be unnecessary to add the smaller area
relations as subarea role members of the larger ones (as I see has
recently been added to the boundary relation wiki page) – this is a
geographic database and if correctly tagged then the admin_level and
the physical location within an admin area the next class up should
be sufficient. In the UK I think the subarea role has only been used
on a few relations in the Kent area IIRC (I forget now, but when I
was writing a boundary validation program I discovered that
recursing relation members of relations needed to exclude the
subarea role to identify which boundary actually had the issue).

 

If you do decide to add electoral boundaries (there are currently
relatively few entered in GB – ~88 in last night’s Geofabrik
extract, 2 of which need fixing[1]), then after some discussion on
IRC we came up with a political_division tag as mentioned on 

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dpolitical

and again, the location should mean subarea roles aren’t required.

 

Just my opinion though. Perhaps others can think of a reason subarea
members might be useful?

 

Ed

 

[1] http://www.loach.me.uk/osm/boundaries/political.aspx

 

From: Bob Hawkins [mailto:bobhawkins at waitrose.com] 
Sent: 14 November 2011 16:35
To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Administrative boundaries and parent/child
relations

 

I am interested to learn other contributors' thoughts on the
benefits, or otherwise, of adding child relations to parents for
hierarchical United Kingdom administrative areas as in county/local
authority district/civil parish or unitary authority/civil parish,
for example. With the recent benefit of OS OpenData Boundary-Line,
should it be widely practised? Is it worthwhile to add electoral
boundaries and apply to them, also?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20111114/e8a23d76/attachment-0001.html>