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

[Andrew Hain]

For instance the left:county, left:district, right:county and right:district tags that predate boundary relations could be looked at as well at some stage.

--
Andrew

________________________________
From: Dave F via Talk-GB <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: 11 July 2022 16:19
To: Dave F via Talk-GB <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] boundary & admin_level tags on ways.



On 11/07/2022 08:38, Colin Smale 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?

When they're attached to roads, waterways, paths etc.

>
>>> 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.


Again, Colin, your argument is illogical. That there are many erroneous
tags isn't a valid reason to not amend them. One tag at a time, seems a
sensible process.


>
>> 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?

I'm unsure it has occurred yet. I want to ensure it can't. Prevention is
better than cure. Maintaining a simpler database is a good thing.

>
> Boundary ways should not normally be shared with non-boundary functions.

With this I concur, which is why I kept my re-import of Cotswold AONB as
separate entities.

DaveF

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
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/20220713/115d37ae/attachment.htm>