[Talk-se] Historical borders

Konrad Skeri konrad at skeri.com
Thu Aug 27 20:59:47 BST 2009

Ah, det var tänkt till engelska talk-listan för att även få ett 
internationellt perspektiv. Måste ha klickat fel i adressboken. Nåväl, jag fick 
ju svar i alla fall.

Problemet med boundary=historical är att (om tillräckligt många göralösa 
kartnissar är i farten) det kommer att bli administrative med level 1-10, 
episcopal, political etc. som sedan alla ska slåss inom historical när de inte 
gäller längre. Iofs skulle man ju kunna sätta historical=administrative_4 för 
en boundary=administrative, admin_level=4 som inte längre gäller.


torsdagen den 27 augusti 2009 19.45.41 skrev  Einar Ryeng:
> Hi. (Why in english, btw?)
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 04:08:49PM +0200, Konrad Skeri wrote:
> > What is the correct key to add to make a historical border?
> >
> > Using boundary=historical doesn't say anything of the type of border, so
> > I'm thinking of just adding historical=yes on a border (and corresponding
> > relation). I noticed the historic=* key, but that seemed mainly aimed for
> > historic sites and ruins, so I don't know if historic=yes is better since
> > historic=* is already in use, or if the purpose is too different,
> >
> > Just giving it a quick thought historical=yes feels best. Opinions?
> This is NOT a good idea, because it requires every existing application
> using borders to be changed to take account for the historic=yes tag.
> Tagging schemes should as far as possible not contain negating
> statements like this.
> Normal recommendations from the #osm irc channel for these cases is
> boundary=historical;historical=1
> That is, you reserve one otherwise unused value for the "main" tag, and
> create a new tag with this name. The new tag is then given the value
> usually found in the main tag.
> In addition to historic tags, this also goes for things like proposed or
> under construction roads etc.
> > Also, are there any appropriate keys for showing when the border was
> > valid/in use?
> There is someone working on historic railways, you could try checking
> out that.
> Regards,

More information about the Talk-se mailing list