On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:54:56PM +0000, Shaun McDonald wrote: > It is much easier to work out what else goes together by using a > relation, rather than the is_in tag. The is_in tag is a bad tag as we > are dealing with geo data, so we already know what it is in, if all the > boundaries are in the data. Relations are much better for linking > related data. Imported in the right way, you can get two way > relationships setup correctly.
My take: The is_in tag has a freeform value. is_in=Manchester could mean one of many things: Is this Manchester, UK, or one of the many other Manchesters[1]? It defines a relationship between the object and the area, but can be ambiguous. Better in the Manchester case is to have a relation linking things in (that particular) Manchester. The relation unambiguously defines the object. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_(disambiguation) Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
