On Thu, April 10, 2008 12:15, Andy Allan wrote: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Hakan Tandogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >> I don't doubt your reasoning that borders would be far better than >> is_in, but sometimes you have to resort to "kludges" to get something >> off the ground *today* > > Sure. > > >> instead of some at future date when we have perfect data > > Who says it needs to be perfect? Boundaries could have > status=rough_and_ready so that you can say "this is more or less the > village for is_in types of things" without committing yourself to finding > out the actual legal boundaries. When someone has more accurate data they > can fix things up a bit - surely this is one of the OSM principles?
In fact, that is what I'm doing for the area I feel responsible of. I try to create both rough outlines (where I have access to data like out-of-copyright maps) and is_in information (which I derive from the former or from local knowledge). > By the time you've added more than three or four places in a village > to an is_in hierarchy you could have just drawn the rough area instead, and > it would be far more useful - the fifth, sixth and fifty-seventh items in > that rough area wouldn't need any is_in tags at all. Point taken, but I try to automate the is_in population as far as possible. I like building software ;-) Regards, Hakan -- The key to immortality is first living a life worth remembering... _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
