[Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper
colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Mon Aug 15 09:03:21 UTC 2016
Fully agree with you. I also tried to contribute to that changeset
discussion. If you hadn't reverted that admin level change, I would
Some of his ideas are on his diary pages  and my admin boundary page
On 2016-08-15 10:41, Will Phillips wrote:
> This user is currently adding admin_level=10 admin boundaries, which we use for civil parishes (or communities), to areas where no such administrative unit exists. To me this seems problematic because my understanding is that these are legal entities which either exist or they don't. Additionally, it makes OSM boundary data harder to use. If I run a query to find which boundaries a node is within, I'd only expect real admin boundary areas to be returned. The user is adding designation tags (designation=non-civil_parish) to indicate they aren't real, but this is undocumented and data users shouldn't have to check a secondary tag to find out whether a relation is a real civil parish or not.
> The aim seems to be to improve the results returned by Nominatim and other geocoders, but surely this is the wrong way to go about it.
> Here is an example of one of these non-civil parish relations covering the whole of the City of Nottingham, where no such administrative unit has ever existed: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6448042
> I have raised this issue with the user directly but the tone has turned unpleasant and to me feels quite threatening. I accept my initial comment suggesting that one of these relations should be deleted could have been worded much more tactfully, but I don't feel in justifies his aggressive responses since. I was frustrated at finding one of the these non-existent boundaries covering my local area with an inaccurate name.
> On 15/08/2016 08:39, Colin Smale wrote:
>> I noticed a number of new admin boundaries have been tagged with ref:hectares=* with the numeric value giving the area of the entity in hectares. This feels to me like an inappropriate use of "ref" and also redundant as the area can be calculated simply from the geometry anyway. When I queried this with the mapper (user alexkemp) via a changeset discussion  I got the following response:
>> "This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too be able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest in my mapping. -Alex Kemp"
>> Any thoughts about the tagging?
>> Any thoughts about engaging the user? There is also a discussion on another one of his changesets where he unilaterally diverged from the established tagging .
>>  http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41449409
>>  http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41371134
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB