[Talk-us] Relations and boundaries

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 03/03/2016 08:02 PM, Steve Friedl wrote:
> I’ve been updating all the cities in Orange County California to have fully
> segmented relationalized boundaries, such that cities sharing a common
> border share a single way in each of their relations; this eliminates
> overlapping ways.  It’s been very tedious but it's really getting cleaned
> up.

\o/

> First: The individual relations – city, county, national forest, etc. – all
> have full information tags about the entity, but how should the way members
> themselves be tagged?

It is not necessary but may add clarity for people editing the data.
Generally it is recommended to tag boundary=administrative,
admin_level=<highgest admin level involved>, and no names (no
county:left, county:right stuff etc either).


> Within Westminster is a "donut hole" , and the Westminster relation has it
> as a role=inner.
> 
> Question: should that same donut hole be tagged role=outer in the Orange
> County relation?

Yes, that's what I would suggest. It would be nice if our tools allowed
you to simply make the Westminster *relation* an "inner" of Orange
county and thereby automatically do the donut justice but that's not
supported by anything really.

> It just doesn't feel right to have a role=outer fully within another
> role=outer, but that's the only way I can think of to handle this.

Rest assured, when you hear Mathematicians talking about geometry, they
will happily accept that an outer ring can be surrounded by an inner ring.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"