[OSM-talk] is_in

[David Earl]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Laenen [mailto:benlaenen at gmail.com]
> Sent: 27 May 2007 13:06
> To: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Cc: David Earl; Frederik Ramm
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] is_in
>
>
> On Sunday 27 May 2007, David Earl wrote:
> > True, but that's easily resolved by proximity if there's more than
> > one hit. Without boundaries we can't decide which city, region or
> > county something is in, but we can easily distinguish between two or
> > more competing alternatives.
>
> Not always true, see the Limburg example in my previous mail.

Sorry, I missed that. I just looked back at it now.


> But then again, in a database you should store the id numbers, not the
> names, so no ambiguity occurs.


You could, but that's harder to manage IMO. It means a special editor or
typing meaningless numbers.

I'll revise what I said. Proximity works in the vast majority of cases. I'd
prefer to stick with name references and resolve ambiguity another way on
the odd occasion when it arises.

We had a similar problem with two different streets with the same names
within 3km of each other. High Street in the UK is a particular problem like
that, and I usually think it helps to have "name=High Sreet (Chesterton)" or
some such when that arises, so it is clear when the name is quoted with
limited context which is intended (e.g. as printed on the map - where visual
proximity is the only judge unless boundaries are visully available).

I agree a proper tree structure is computationally better, but it requires
more software to manage. And as Fred said, tat might be better done outside
of OSM.

David