On 8/15/2016 7:03 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
Hi Will,
Fully agree with you. I also tried to contribute to that changeset
discussion. If you hadn't reverted that admin level change, I would
have...
Some of his ideas are on his diary pages [1] and my admin boundary
page [2].
Colin
[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/alexkemp/diary
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Csmale/ukboundaries
On 2016-08-15 10:41, Will Phillips wrote:
Hi,
This user is currently adding admin_level=10 admin boundaries, which
we use for civil parishes (or communities), to areas where no such
administrative unit exists. To me this seems problematic because my
understanding is that these are legal entities which either exist or
they don't. Additionally, it makes OSM boundary data harder to use.
If I run a query to find which boundaries a node is within, I'd only
expect real admin boundary areas to be returned. The user is adding
designation tags (designation=non-civil_parish) to indicate they
aren't real, but this is undocumented and data users shouldn't have
to check a secondary tag to find out whether a relation is a real
civil parish or not.
The aim seems to be to improve the results returned by Nominatim and
other geocoders, but surely this is the wrong way to go about it.
Here is an example of one of these non-civil parish relations
covering the whole of the City of Nottingham, where no such
administrative unit has ever existed:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6448042
I have raised this issue with the user directly but the tone has
turned unpleasant and to me feels quite threatening. I accept my
initial comment suggesting that one of these relations should be
deleted could have been worded much more tactfully, but I don't feel
in justifies his aggressive responses since. I was frustrated at
finding one of the these non-existent boundaries covering my local
area with an inaccurate name.
Will
On 15/08/2016 08:39, Colin Smale wrote:
Hi,
I noticed a number of new admin boundaries have been tagged with
ref:hectares=* with the numeric value giving the area of the entity
in hectares. This feels to me like an inappropriate use of "ref" and
also redundant as the area can be calculated simply from the
geometry anyway. When I queried this with the mapper (user alexkemp)
via a changeset discussion [1] I got the following response:
"This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too
be able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your
interest in my mapping. -Alex Kemp"
Any thoughts about the tagging?
Any thoughts about engaging the user? There is also a discussion on
another one of his changesets where he unilaterally diverged from
the established tagging [2].
Colin
[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41449409
[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41371134
He is active on his diary pages .. and they make entertaining reading
and are sometimes informative.
_Area..._
Regarding the ref:hectares ... humm while the area might be calculated
correctly for a 'flat' area .. most have slopes ... don't know if that
is officially included in area calculations :) Probably not.
There does appear to be some demand for tagging areas .. e.g. Area_sq_m
(8,164), area:ha (4,109) and others. Unfortunately the tag 'area' is a
simple indication of a shape being rendered .. and it would be confusing
to use it as a numerical value. Possibly there needs to be some
provision/instruction on the OSMwiki for this?
_
__Parishes .. admin boundaries etc..._
Not me! I have not dabbled in this, other than fixing some that were
broken and I had easy access to the data (not UK ones). Think Alex has a
diary entry on it with his thinking... might be a place to indicate a
different interpretation compared to his thoughts (in a polite manner)?
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
