On 2015-11-26 20:08, Marcos Oliveira wrote :
It's an handy and intuitive way of organizing boundaries in a neat hierarchy visible from the database itself.
It is even mandatory when you have to make nested boundaries that have no admin_level like the two boundary systems we have in Belgium (political and linguistic).  I don't think that the Belgian government would appreciate Martin's idea to move the Belgian boundaries to a talk page where we would discuss that with the Swiss, the USA (Spanish and even French) and the other multilingual countries.
Or when you want to make simply an admin_level depend not on the upper one but on one higher like Brussels is and like someone wanted to do for Munich if I recall well.
They are visually very easy to verify and there can be a very simple program to use them to check the boundary ways nightmare and even to create them. It's a bad idea to say they're redundant. (I almost wrote that program but I lost that page of code).  Place=* and their tags are redundant with boundary=administrative relations and  they are much much less useful than subareas.
When we were creating the boundaries of Belgium, a friend was writing in a file the numbers of the boundaries he created.  Inevitably, we made the same job twice. The problem stopped when he understood he should create a subarea as soon as a new boundary relation is created.
It's a really bad reaction to say "I don't understand that", may I erase it? Understand first.
There should be a parent role to the mother as well. A relation tree could be scanned both directions in a wink with just direct links without resorting to complicated methods.

It is nice to see that those who did try to understand subareas and did try to use them do appreciate them.
I recently fixed a part of the German border that was going outside Germany.

Cheers

André.

Take for example this boundary [1]. If the subarea role was deprecated then it would be a lot harder of finding out which are its father, grandfather, etc. relations, which would make verifying them a more tedious task. 


2015-11-26 18:51 GMT+00:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]>:
I just noticed that a lot of boundary relations have the lower ranking parts included as members with the "subarea" role.
This role is documented here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary

But I wonder how it got on this definition page. Was this discussed anywhere? I don't think it's a good idea to add all those lower entities in nested relations (they are already spatially structured, this is redundant and makes the relations more complicated for no good reason).

I propose to remove this property from the definition page and move it to the talk page.

Comments?

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




--
Um Abraço,
Marcos Oliveira


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Reply via email to