I don't think that numeric values of admin_level > 2 was intended to be at roughly the same level of "importance" or "prominence" across countries. Individual countries are free to specify how their admin_level values correspond to their admin units. Otherwise, a building in the Vatican City (not that they're actually tagged with admin_levels) would be considered on the same level as Wales and Scotland.
Then again, the style rules apply admin_level styles uniformly across the whole world so there may be merit in discussing these things. On the other hand, Mapnik and T@H are not definitive renderings and people are free to create alternate renderings if they choose to do so. On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 10:17 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2011/2/4 Nick Whitelegg <nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>: > > > To be quite honest I really, really don't care that much at all: but, by > > word of explanation I was only suggesting what I *thought would be sensible* > > as England/Wales/Scotland/NI all have significant national identity of their > > own. > > > that's not the question though. The question is how is the country > divided in administrative units. > > > > Looking at the wiki article, one could argue for the removal of level 3 > > altogether to be quite honest as the vast majority of countries have no > > entry. But once again, I really, really don't care that much. > > > There is currently around 15 countries using admin_level=3, of course > you cannot argue to remove it without damaging stuff. It is normal and > has its sense that not every country has every level, because the > countries are organized and structured in different ways, hence we get > the possibility to map the differences and not force analogies where > there aren't. > > Cheers, > Martin > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk