[OSM-talk] Relations Proposals for boundary, country and is_in
Hi, I've founde three relation proposals with nearly the seam aims. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Boundaries http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Country http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Is_In I've also seen relations with type=nation meaning nearly the same as country. What's about having only two of them: _Boundaries_ Relation: * type=boundary * name=? * admin_level=? Members: * way or relation with role border. _Territory (you may choose a better word that for)_ Relation: * type=relam * name[:de|:en|:it|:fr]=? * level=[country|state|county|district] * population, language, founded Members: * territoy-relation with role is_in * boundary-relation with role border * node with role capital What do you think of this? Regards Raphael ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations Proposals for boundary, country and is_in
"Raphael Studer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've founde three relation proposals with nearly the seam aims. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Boundaries > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Country > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Is_In > > I've also seen relations with type=nation meaning nearly the same as country. > > What's about having only two of them: I was thinking along these lines when I wrote the Country proposal, please remove it as an obsolete suggestion and suggest this instead as it looks much cleaner to me. Btw: is there a clear procedure on how we make relation usages standard? -- Knut Arne Bjørndal aka Bob Kåre [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations Proposals for boundary, country and is_in
Hi, > Btw: is there a clear procedure on how we make relation usages > standard? I believe the route relation has become standard by being used, and I'd suggest the same for others ;-) Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations Proposals for boundary, country and is_in
Knut Arne Bjørndal wrote: > "Raphael Studer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I've founde three relation proposals with nearly the seam aims. >> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Boundaries >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Country >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Is_In >> >> I've also seen relations with type=nation meaning nearly the same as country. Seeing some use of undocumented nation relation I beg to differ. nation is not a country. Countries are administratively (or by force) defined geographical entities. Countries generally don't overlap, have precise (although sometimes disputed) borders, can have exclaves, enclaves...can be mapped precisely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country Nation are people with common culture. Nations can overlap, can have minorities in other countries, borders between nations are generally blurring with globalisation...can be mapped only vaguely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation Sure, some countries might represent a nation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation-state but this certainly cannot be applied globally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State#Usage So, I'm voting for country relation by using it in our parts of the wood. :) Stefan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
