[Talk-in] Administrative Boundary

[I Chengappa]

I see the missing AL6 in India has been replaced by me a week or so ago
according to its history. The replacement is relation 6532860. Though I
cannot remember why I did it, whether I removed the previous one or found
it missing.

On 6 September 2016 at 08:20, Walter Nordmann <wnordmann at gmx.de> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Yes, admin_boundaries should be relations (multipolygons) with this tags:
>
> type=boundary, boundary=administrative, admin_level=XX, name=YY.
>
> area=yes is not needed, because boundaries are always closed (or should be
> ;)) and are describing an area.
>
> Just to be shure i checked Velur Ward IV https://openstreetmap.org/rela
> tion/6526524 and it's looking fine. BUT there are remains of the old
> boundary ways, which should be removed from OSM.
>
> See https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/images/osm/snaps_2016/Velur_Ward_IV.png
> which shows a  Josm view of that area.
> Pink: new relation, red: old redundant ways, which should be removed.
>
> Regards
> walter/germany
>
> btw: I'm doing a lot of stuff with boundaries.
>
> see https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/boundaries for QA and exporting
> boundaries
> and https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/index.php/projekte/internatio
> nale-administrative-grenzen/missing-boundaries
>
> detail: https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/index.php/projekte/internatio
> nale-administrative-grenzen/missing-boundaries/10-osm-
> reports/667-countries-compare-2016-08-28
> One AL6 in India has been deleted. It's just "gone", but we don't know why.
>
> there will be a report every day. current day is still running.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-in mailing list
> Talk-in at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-in/attachments/20160906/f23ba6d2/attachment.html>