[OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

[Badita Florin]

It is interesting the things that you discover when trying to do the import
of a whole county, in this case, Mexico

Our task is to delete all the existing admin_level=6 boundaries and start
fresh, but this seems much more things needs to happen before you do this.

There are over 500 nodes or ways that share a common node or follow the
same path with the old boundaries that we want to remove, so we can add the
new boundaries. One interesting topic had have sprung up is this, what are
the procedures for dealing with boundaries that run along a road, waterway.

A query that we had build to detect this kind of shared nodes and ways
looks like this http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/bZA

You can adapt the script and share your results, to see if there are other
examples that can be included here

Now it has come up a question, what happens for example with cases like
this.

A way that is two things simultaneously, for example a highway and a
boundary at the same time. There are some cases like these in the state of
Michoacan and I can't just de-glue the bad nodes because the way  itself
seems to be two things at the same time.  This is the issue in question,
your query identified the following two nodes:

Nodes 1856092007
<http://t.sidekickopen24.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7t5XYg4XrmfHMQByL0f6nqlW3LyBkH56dL4Zf8p2wPs02?t=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Fnode%2F1856092007&si=6117088740507648&pi=d9ea1099-68c4-44a7-9853-3b1c4a86d057>
and 1856092002
<http://t.sidekickopen24.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7t5XYg4XrmfHMQByL0f6nqlW3LyBkH56dL4Zf8p2wPs02?t=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Fnode%2F1856092002&si=6117088740507648&pi=d9ea1099-68c4-44a7-9853-3b1c4a86d057>
, which limit the following  way
<http://t.sidekickopen24.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7t5XYg4XrmfHMQByL0f6nqlW3LyBkH56dL4Zf8p2wPs02?t=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Fway%2F174970090&si=6117088740507648&pi=d9ea1099-68c4-44a7-9853-3b1c4a86d057>
between such nodes.
This way is a highway and at the same time is part of the relation of a
boundary. This seems invalid since it merges two types of features on the
same way instead of keeping a logical separation between two different
things. Is this a valid way? What if the highway is modified ? since the
highway is not a legal boundary and just happens to overlap the real
boundary, so if the highway  is changed for any reason, it will modify the
boundary along with it. So what's the valid thing to do here? Duplicate the
way to save the highway way and keep a way for the boundary separated?,
I've found similar questions
<http://t.sidekickopen24.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7t5XYg4XrmfHMQByL0f6nqlW3LyBkH56dL4Zf8p2wPs02?t=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.openstreetmap.org%2Fquestions%2F7563%2Fwaterway-as-administrative-boundary-shared-way&si=6117088740507648&pi=d9ea1099-68c4-44a7-9853-3b1c4a86d057>
by other users and they indicate it isn't valid but I need a more official
argument because the user is upset if we remove this kind of ways from
relations
ᐧ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20151014/7c782d46/attachment-0001.html>