Tagging capital=* or admin_level=* on a place is IMHO not to be done lightly. It is not actually an attribute of the place at all, because if you moved the place to e.g. the middle of the Atlantic Ocean it would no longer be a capital. It is an attribute of the relationship between the place and an (administrative) area. So the place and the area (represented by a relation in OSM) may reference each other, for example by including the place in the relation with a role such as admin_centre. Because a place cannot be a capital in and of itself (it can only be a capital OF somewhere) putting these tags on the place node is a denormalisation - to make things more convenient for the data consumers, so they don't have to go through the relations to see if a place is a capital or not. Such denormalisations are not always a Bad Thing (it's a balance), but there must be an acceptance that there is only One Truth, and zero or more derivatives. The One Truth would be in the relations and we will need a mechanism (or at least an algorithm) to derive the tagging for the place from the relations which reference it.
capital=2 only means it's the capital of A country. Without a link to the country in question, this tag could be misused to increase prominence on the maps, AKA "mapping (incorrectly) for the renderer", which is "frowned upon". So I say let's ban capital=* and admin_level=* on the place nodes! Colin. On 2014-05-15 19:36, fly wrote: > Am 15.05.2014 18:32, schrieb Andreas Goss: > Am 5/15/14 16:30 , schrieb fly: Regarding the original discussion I am in > favour of using capital=[2-10]* if an additional tag is needed. I meant additional to the roles for the boundary relation above (cutted). admin_centre for 1 or more nodes capital if not equal to admin_centre or more than one admin_centre present. >> The semicolon (;) is defined as value separator so we could have >> capital=4;6;8 or similar. > This just sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. I also don't see why it > would be needed. You are doubling the risk of errors when it comes to > admin_levels. Now you don't just have to ensure all relations are correct, > but also all nodes. As we are talking about admin_level (<-> capital) on nodes and it was mentioned that it might be easier to use and I am not sure if it is used. If any I would go with capital=* and not admin_level=* > You also have no reference to those numbers. When you add one admin_level to > a relation that relation has a name (Bavaria is a state). When placing > admin_centre you know the name of the relation and of the city so you can > make a connection (Munich is the capital of Bavaria). And while that maybe is > obvious at level 2 and 4, it becomes more compicated when you get into > smaller administrative areas. This also makes it more complicated to find > errors in the first place. I also bet that people are going to assume that > some numbers are missing and are simply going to add them, especially as it > varies from country to country, from state to state etc. Others might simply > add a number with good intend, because they had the wrong admin_levels in > mind. Cheers fly _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1] Links: ------ [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
