On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 05:20:51PM +0000, Thomas Wood wrote: > I see no reason why the relation model cannot apply with a tagging of > boundary=maritime on the maritime sections of the boundary. > The required ways will still be retrievable from a (correctly > produced) relation, so the primary concern of the tagging of the ways > should be for renderers (and certainly in Mapnik's case, keeping the > tagging simple greatly simplifies the implementation - messing around > with specific relations just to determine the maritime status of a way > is messy).
Simple rendering without need for the relation has been taken care of in the comprehensive proposal by tagging the ways with admin_level. What else do you need? > I also think we should keep boundary=administrative for 'confirmed' > boundaries, the territorial waters maritime boundaries is (currently) > defined from OSM's view of the country's coastline, so may not be the > definitive boundary. There is nothing "confirmed" in OSM anyway. Land and maritime borders are like everything else we have from some unknown source of questionable validity. :-) I see no difference here. > Maritime borders are by their nature different from administrative > borders on land, so I think that using boundary=maritime rather than > boundary=administrative maritime=yes (or other suggested options) is > worthy. Why are they different? I don't see that. Adding new tags (here boundary=maritime) always has a cost. Every software that wants to do something with the data has to know about it. Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
