[Talk-GB] boundary mania

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-08-26 21:17, David Woolley wrote:

> It looks to me as though boundaries can be defined recursively, so Hampshire, rather than its bounding ways, ought to to be the object referenced in the bigger entities.

This wouldn't work in the case of civil parishes as components of
districts and UA's though. You cannot define a district as the union of
the parishes. There are unparished areas, detached parts and "lands
common" which complicate the model. However I believe every point in the
UK is within some district/UA, and every district is within a county,
giving 100% coverage at that level.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20180826/4ee52634/attachment.html>