Rally, Maning is asking about the administrative centres, and that would mean government authorities in charge of administration. They are not meant to represent the [geographic] "center of the village" which isn't something we normally map.
As for place=village nodes, and like I wrote earlier, I put them in the commons (e.g. plaza, local park, etc.). Erwin *Erwin Olario* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - » email: erwin@ <er...@ngnuity.net>*n**gnu**IT**y**.**net* <http://ngnuity.net/> | gov...@gmail.com » mobile: (PHL): +63 908 817 2013 » OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93 D56B On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Rally de Leon <rall...@gmail.com> wrote: > Question: > - What's the best practice for adding admin_centre nodes to the village > boundary relation? Should it be the barangay hall (amenity=townhall) > or the place=village node? > > ------------ > For place nodes, a good practice IMHO is putting said node (eg. > place=village) > somewhere NEAR but NOT ON an "object or group of objects" which > represents the center of the village, typically any of the following: > -barangay hall > -village plaza (eg. where there's a multipurpose hall or basketball > court) > -the center of traditional grid-street (the oldest populated area of the > place) > > My interpretation of "somewhere near" is around 100-150 meters away; > on a not-so-important space (eg. a vacant area or generic community) > in the vicinity, where there are no other place nodes, or important > landmarks > like a park or institution. > > 1st Reason: > The 'place node' is represented by a TEXT on the map. > -a rendered TEXT always cover the lines and polygons under it. Thus, > putting a place_node very close to another object (eg. important > building), > will essentially make that building disappear (information visibility is > not optimized). > Said buildings will only appear when you zoom-in on a digital map. > But you cannot zoom-in on a paper map (2-D). So I thought, the best > practice > is to move it just enough not to cover important objects (part of the art). > (until such time we have an algorithm to do that automatically) > > 2nd Reason: > Putting a place node inside a polygon with a large footprint the size of > a neighborhood, like an institutional_polygon or a park; will not just > potentially cover the 'name' of institution or park, but add unintended > confusion or misrepresentation of the polygon. > eg. If you put a place_node of Ermita inside Rizal Park's valencia circle, > a tourist who wants to go to the heart of Ermita, ends up in Luneta > (which is technically Ermita) - but was not probably his/her intention > > 3rd Reason: > There are some LGU's (municipal and barangays) which relocated (or > isolated) > their new townhalls away from the village or town centers. > > Putting a place_node on top or near an isolated townhall (away from > populated center) > is not always representative of the general location of the village or the > town. > (this is a dilemna for Mamasapano, where townhall is located near the > boundary) > > ----------------------- > I'm voting +1 for: > place=village as admin_centre, provided it's located NEAR not ON the > object (amenity=townhall) > > Cheer, > Rally > > > > > _______________________________________________ > talk-ph mailing list > talk-ph@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph > >
_______________________________________________ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
