I just wanted to check with the list on this. I think it makes sense to do this, but I would like to know if I am wrong or if there are concerns.
I am looking at 2 ways: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33075997 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/107712882 Together they seem to delineate the city of Chino Hills, CA, which is a small city and not the same as Chino, CA. And I am seeing no relation for Chino Hills. Am I right in thinking that it would be correct to create a relation to contain these two ways to define the city boundaries? I am then thinking that I can remove these tags from the two ways and put the union of the values (only one way has a "name:de", for example) on the relation only: admin_level, border_type, boundary, is_in, is_in:*, name, name:*, place, and wikipedia Yes? I think I should leave all the tiger:* tags attached to the two ways. Yes? Any other suggestions? Just FYI, these are the cities that I have found in California that do not seem to have a relation that defines them and that seem to have more than one way attached to the name of the city. I will probably be looking at the others on this list later. Chino Hills Arcadia Diamond Bar Cypress San Dimas Seal Beach La Palma California City San Marino Sierra Madre cheers - ray _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
