[Talk-us] Boundary Relation and Tagging

[Mike Thompson]

Frederik,

Ok, I won't do any cleanup.  Seems kind of messy the way it currently
is, but you make a good point about the history.

Here is another, somewhat related, question.  Fort Collins CO is
represented by two separate relations: 112524 and 253754, neither of
which matches the 2008 TIGER data that they claim to be derived from,
although 253754 is a much closer match.  What is going on here?  There
is only one "Fort Collins, CO" and in my mind it should only be
represented by one relation in the data.

Mike

On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Mike Thompson wrote:
>>
>> It is my understanding that if all members of a relation share the
>> same tag value the relation should be tagged and not the individual
>> members. I have discovered several boundary relations in my local area
>> that do not follow this principal.  For example, relation 112396
>> references ways 33118788, 33118777, 33118789 and 33118727 (among
>> others) but all are tagged with essentially the same information.
>> Should duplicate tagging be removed from the members?
>
> As a very general rule, I would always advise against "cleanup edits". If
> you touch an object for some other reason, and then you find that it carries
> tags you think are superfluous, then remove them. But if you are not
> planning to add any information, then just leave well alone and don't touch
> 100s of objects just to "clean up". This doesn't really improve anything,
> but it has a double adverse effect: (1) a new version of the full object is
> created in the database, and the full previous version is kept in the
> history records, i.e. removing one tag from a 1000-node way means eight to
> ten KB extra in our database, and (2) the way is now "last modified in 2011
> by Mike Thompson" which could lead others to think that you know anything
> about that border or even checked it correctness in 2011 when all you did
> was "clean up".
>
> In your special case, I would recommend to at least keep the
> "boundary=administrative" on the ways even if you are right in saying that,
> if they are members of a boundary relation, they don't need tags at all;
> keeping that tag will immediately tell everyone what this way is for even if
> they don't look at relations (not all tools do that properly).
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>