Perhaps true in general, but in this specific case the administrative boundary for San Diego (1) is quite a long way from the post office in Pine Valley (2)(3) and the Pine Valley post office is most likely to have a postal name of “Pine Valley” as displayed on the front of the building (right next to the restaurant I ate in last week and I saw it). And the post office is in the administrative boundary for Pine Valley (4). (I was wrong earlier in assuming that there was no administrative boundary for Pine Valley.)
This afternoon I took the liberty of changing the addr:city tags in this area to “Pine Valley” as well as changing “Rd” to “Road”, “Tl” and “Tr” to “Trail”, etc. I probably ought to go back and remove the is_in:city=“San Diego" tags on those too. Seems like the is_in:city tag, like most other is_in:* tags, should be deprecated in favor of boundary polygons. Basically this is a badly done import and needs fixing. Cheers, Tod (1) http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/253832#map=10/32.8254/-117.1081 (2) http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/358845864 (3) http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/596514088 (3) http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33169422#map=13/32.8418/-116.5108 > On Nov 9, 2015, at 5:42 PM, Richard Welty <rwe...@averillpark.net> wrote: > > this may not be a mistake. "postal city" in the use does not necessarily > map directly to actual city; the postal city designation is determined by > what post office is delivering the mail. > > richard > _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
