Hi,
I agree with both. I've been removing is_in tags here and there since a few
months as JOSM encourages to do so.By the way, I also noticed that at some
places streets (highways) have an is_in tag.
Regards,
StijnRR
Op woensdag 5 februari 2020 16:37:26 CET schreef Midgard
<midgard+tal...@janmaes.com>:
Dear mappers
If you ever touched a place node, chances are you saw it was cluttered with:
- tags with a "openGeoDB:" prefix and
- "is_in" tags.
I hereby propose a mechanical edit to delete those from all features in Belgium.
The Overpass query to fetch the data is https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qqa
- The openGeoDB tags date to 2008, when the plan was to keep populations
updated from the openGeoDB
database. This never happened and probably never will.
Information about OpenGeoDB on the wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenGeoDB
For an example, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/79382706/history
- The is_in tags are largely obsolete. The administrative boundaries replace
them.
They're also not uniform in OSM to begin with. Some examples:
- Beernem: is_in=Belgie, Vlaanderen, West-Vlaanderen
- Sint-Andries: is_in=Brugge,West-Vlaanderen,Belgium,Europe
- Hoekskensstraat: is_in=Lebbeke, Oost-Vlaanderen
- Meise: is_in=Vlaams-Brabant,Belgium,Europe
is_in:continent=Europe
is_in:country=Belgium
is_in:province=Flemish Brabant
Why remove them? For data users they create the impression that this is data
they can use.
Mappers may be confused about them and waste time maintaining them. They are
not useful to anyone.
I'd like to collectively make a decision ("go" or "no go") by the end of the
month, 29 February.
Please send in your comments, even if it's just "not sure, maybe we shouldn't
do this"!
Kind regards,
Midgard
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
