Frankie Roberto wrote: > I've always used suburb, but locality might be a good alternative. > > Another question is: is it better to map quarters as areas or nodes? > > Somewhere like Paris has distinct boundaries to it arrondisments > (which also define post code areas), but in others cities, 'quarters' > are more colloquial, used informally, or in the marketing of a city. > For instance, in Manchester, there's a map of the city divided into > quarters published by the tourism board > (http://visitmanchester.com/maps.aspx#citymap_anchor) but most of > those boundaries look pretty made up to me (and some of the names as > well). > > So in these cases, it's probably easier to map as a node. But if there > is a rough boundary, that's reasonably well understood by locals, but > has no legal or physical basis, then is it ok to map that as an area? >
In Paris, the arrondissements are an administrative area with an admin level of 10. Each of those arrondissements have a townhall. Therefore they can't be a locality. If you are talking about Montmartres, then yes, you can use locality. I believe that locality is better mapped as a node as the boundaries are usually fuzzy. Emilie Laffray
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
