[Talk-GB] boundary & admin_level tags on ways.

[Paul Berry]

> Boundary ways should not normally be shared with non-boundary functions.
The line of the boundary is legally fixed at the time when it is
created/amended and does not move because the highways authority realigns a
road or builds a roundabout, or indeed when a river changes its course.
(Different rules apply in estuaries and at the coast because the
jurisdiction extends to low water (MHW/MHWS), which is "dynamic".)

Agreed, so if I see a way that has conflated a boundary and a river, for
example way #796667501, should I duplicate the way and rearrange the tags
so that one is clearly the boundary and the other the waterway, updating
any relations accordingly? (To be clear: I have happened upon a way of
yours but I'm not singling you out.)

Regards,
*Paul*

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 at 08:40, Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl> wrote:

>
> > On 11/07/2022 04:14 Dave F <davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10/07/2022 21:22, Colin Smale wrote:
> > > For what it's worth I would like to leave these tags (at least
> boundary=*) on the ways.
> > >
> > > I know it's a rather selfish reason, but when working in Potlatch (as
> I and many others still do) it shows the boundary way in a distinctive
> style, so it stands out a bit and is easier to follow.
> >
> > This is one of the (minor) reasons why I would like them removed. I find
> > the Potlatch rendering obscures the /real/ purpose of the way.
>
> I don't understand your point... I suggest making boundary ways
> distinctive (in the editor) and you say it would obscure the /real/ purpose
> of the way? What is the /real/ purpose you are referring to here?
>
> >
> > > In any case, I would argue that these tags could be considered
> redundant or superfluous, but not erroneous (assuming they are not
> erroneous of course). In other words, their presence is not worth the
> effort to go round deleting them without any other reason to update that
> way.
> >
> > It can be performed in one changeset.
> > I'm still struggling to understand why some contributors have an
> > aversion to amending tags. Redundancy is a prime reason for editing.
> > There's nothing wrong with a spring clean of superfluousness.
>
> Would you advocate a mass edit crusade to rid the map of "superfluous
> tags"? Good luck with that. I assume your philosophy would apply equally to
> all redundant tags, and not just boundary=* on ways.
>
> >
> > And before anybody replies with the illogical 'non updated data
> > encourages people to update' nonsense again - Sorry It just don't buy it.
> >
> >
> > >   A bit like the widespread use of oneway=no or access=yes - possibly
> pointless, but not actually WRONG.
> > >
> > > I don't see how could they lead to confusion and erroneous edits
> though.
>
> > If the boundaries change & only the way is amended it leads to errors.
> > Contributors see the tag on the way could assume there wouldn't be an
> > extras on any of the relations.
> Could you illustrate this with an example?
>
> Boundary ways should not normally be shared with non-boundary functions.
> The line of the boundary is legally fixed at the time when it is
> created/amended and does not move because the highways authority realigns a
> road or builds a roundabout, or indeed when a river changes its course.
> (Different rules apply in estuaries and at the coast because the
> jurisdiction extends to low water (MHW/MHWS), which is "dynamic".)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20220711/dc6f53be/attachment.htm>