I'd stick to tags on the relations, and not super relations. Relations are not categories. Relations are for things that are in spatial *relationship* to one another, not just a collection.
Richard On 10 Feb 2017 13:37, "SK53" <sk53....@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm really not sure that we should be trying to map these at all. If we do > I think Colin's approach is best: a super-relation of other admin entities. > Not easy to create in the online editors but easy enough in JOSM. > > There is very little on the ground to allow verification, and I suspect > many will be rather ephemeral entities. > > There are numerous other boundaries which might be of more interest, but > still perhaps not suitable for OSM : school and GP catchment areas; police > authority areas and community policing areas; NHS commissioning areas; etc, > etc. > > As ever the question is where do we stop. I think a useful questions to > ask are: "Are these boundaries principally used internally to an > organisation with little or no use outside it?"; "Do the boundaries impinge > on people external to the originating organisation such that reference to > these boundaries is likely to be made regularly?"; "Can people tell you > where roughly where these boundaries lie?. > > I can at a pinch tell you the catchment area of my GP surgery because they > have a big map on the surgery wall, and once upon a time knowledge of NHS > DHA boundaries was something I need to know professionally, but for the > most part I dont know anything about the others. > > Jerry > > On 10 February 2017 at 12:01, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> Hi Brian, >> >> On 2017-02-10 12:36, Brian Prangle wrote: >> >> Hmmmm - that's one way I hadn't thought of. I was thinking of just adding >> a tag to each boundary relation to indicate membership status along the >> lines of west_midlands_combined_authority= constituent_member or >> non-constituent_member as appropriate. It should work just as well and >> won't fry my brain in trying to build a relation of that complexity >> >> The relations shouldn't be complex, certainly not brain-fryingly so.. >> Also a single relation for the WMCA would comply with the principle of "one >> object in real life is one object in OSM" and give a unique starting point >> for users to find the extent and the membership of the authority. Is >> "non-constituent membership" limited to LA's in the vicinity of the West >> Midlands? Anything to stop e.g. Cornwall Council from joining, if they so >> desired? >> >> >> >> Counties might not be officially required but trying filling in an online >> address form and see where it gets you if you omit county! >> >> Not really our problem! What county would you enter for Uxbridge? >> Middlesex? Or Greater London? >> >> >> And what admin status should we give to Local Economic Partnerships? My >> inclination is not to bother mapping them as boundaries but to add tags as >> above along the lines of LEP= name >> >> >> LA's can belong to multiple LEPs so this might get messy. Again I would >> apply the principle of "one object..." and create a relation for the LEP, >> and make the LAs members. This allows the LEPs to overlap without any >> ambiguity and "not a semicolon in sight"... >> >> //colin >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
