[Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper
61sundowner at gmail.com
Mon Aug 15 11:00:46 UTC 2016
On 8/15/2016 7:03 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
> Hi Will,
> 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 .
>  http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/alexkemp/diary
>  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Csmale/ukboundaries
> 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:
>> 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
He is active on his diary pages .. and they make entertaining reading
and are sometimes informative.
Regarding the ref:hectares ... humm while the area might be calculated
correctly for a 'flat' area .. most have slopes ... don't know if that
is officially included in area calculations :) Probably not.
There does appear to be some demand for tagging areas .. e.g. Area_sq_m
(8,164), area:ha (4,109) and others. Unfortunately the tag 'area' is a
simple indication of a shape being rendered .. and it would be confusing
to use it as a numerical value. Possibly there needs to be some
provision/instruction on the OSMwiki for this?
__Parishes .. admin boundaries etc..._
Not me! I have not dabbled in this, other than fixing some that were
broken and I had easy access to the data (not UK ones). Think Alex has a
diary entry on it with his thinking... might be a place to indicate a
different interpretation compared to his thoughts (in a polite manner)?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB