[OSM-talk] is_in, isin: namespaces

[Hakan Tandogan]

Tom Higgy wrote:
> Hi folks.
> 
> I added a comment to the wiki [[Talk:Placename_hierachies]] about using
> namespaces for identifying what each part of is_in actually means.
> 
> It's something that's been brought up before and I think makes it much
> easier to derive some useful place data from OSM.
> 
> Currently is_in is basically a list of tags, although in most cases in a
> particular order. Different people put in different levels of details
> (some just county, some include country, some continent). Using
> namespaces allows one to know Shropshire is the county, for example,
> without having to guess it.

Could you please check [[Relations/Proposed/Is_In]] too? Does the "type" 
  tag there fit what you need?

> I've been using isin:country, isin:county, etc, for a while as well as
> is_in and I know some others have been too. It'd be nice to have it
> standardised.

Yes, but I think this is one of the cases where a relation would be 
quite handy.

Maybe I'll start with a script that converts the various is_in tags to 
relations.


Regards,
Hakan



-- 
The Key To Immortality Is First Living A Life Worth Remembering.