Re: [OSM-talk] Using multipolygons as boundaries

2009-01-05 Thread Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 I am thus suggesting that we drop using the special type=boundary
 relation and instead use a simple type=multipolygon for administrative
 areas. Everything else would stay the same (boundary=administrative,
 admin_level=x, name=y, ...). Members would not carry the roles exclave
 and enclave (which seem to have been difficult to understand for
 some), but instead simply outer and inner just like with plain
 multipolygons.

This would be very welcome, I was recently trying to map just such a
boundary wondering why this couldn't just be a multipolygon instead of
some new type of relation that served exactly the same purpose.
Generalization FTW!

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


[OSM-talk] Using multipolygons as boundaries

2009-01-04 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi,

those of us who use relations to tag administrative boundaries 
usually apply the schema described in

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary

which suggests to use a type=boundary relation with enclaves and 
exclaves. At the time of conception, that was ok because 
administrative areas (e.g. countries) often required border lines taht 
consisted of many ways and exclaves, something that plain multipolygons 
did not support.

Since we now have advanced multipolygons as described here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relation:multipolygon#Advanced_multipolygons

(which, being true to their name, support any number of disjunct areas 
which may have zero or more holes each, and even islands in holes and so 
on), there is an equivalence between the two: each administrative area 
corresponds to exactly one multipolygon.

I am thus suggesting that we drop using the special type=boundary 
relation and instead use a simple type=multipolygon for administrative 
areas. Everything else would stay the same (boundary=administrative, 
admin_level=x, name=y, ...). Members would not carry the roles exclave 
and enclave (which seem to have been difficult to understand for 
some), but instead simply outer and inner just like with plain 
multipolygons.

I have described the suggested change in detail here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relation:boundary#Use_type.3Dmultipolygon_instead

The main advantage of this is that any piece of software that works with 
our data would just have to understand multipolygons - wheter they are 
additionally tagged as representing a boundary, a forest, a lake or 
whatever - instead of having to carry a list of relation types that form 
one or the other kind of area.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09 E008°23'33

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk