[talk-ph] is_in tags in the Philippines

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

Just another data point to add to the discussion:

JOSM currently warns that is_in=* tags are deprecated:
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/changeset/14917/josm

Generally, tagging suggestions in JOSM are not usually controversial
(unlike some of iD's tagging suggestions). Therefore, I usually delete such
tags if they are redundant to administrative boundary relations.

On the other hand, I would preserve them, or even add them (like for Brgy.
Quinawan, Bagac, Bataan[1]), if the boundary relation doesn't exist yet.

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3085704286/history

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 3:50 PM Eugene Alvin Villar, <seav80 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I generally agree except for the cases where the tag value corresponds to
> an administrative entity that already has a boundary relation. In which
> case I would then remove the tag.
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 10:16 AM Erwin Olario, <govvin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Until we have a complete, and accurate sub-national boundary polygons in
>> the Philippines, I'd like to suggest that we avoid removing is_in tags, as
>> these may still contain valuable information that cannot be deduced from
>> still non-existent boundaries.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> /erwin
>>
>>
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> » email: erwin@ <erwin at ngnuity.net>*n**gnu**it**y**.xyz*
>> <http://ngnuity.net/> | govvin at gmail.com
>> » mobile: https://t.me/GOwin
>> » OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93
>> D56B
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk-ph mailing list
>> talk-ph at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/attachments/20200209/1c0645d2/attachment.htm>