On 2 Jul 2009, at 13:29, Ed Loach wrote: >> However, Hampshire (England) is not rendering. I have looked at >> the >> data with various tools and can't see what is wrong. >> >> The best tool for finding errors in boundaries is this one, but >> it >> fails for Hamphire for some reason:- >> http://osm.cdauth.de/route-manager/relation.php?id=76228 > > It seems to fail for Essex as well, and I'm fairly sure that is OK, > so I suspect the tool has problems (though perhaps a sample of two > relations is insufficient).
Yes, I believe it is a problem with the tool - it seems a bit random about where it works and where it doesn't > > I suspect (as I managed to email direct), that the problem is > related to the pink way on the geofabrik page which it says is > always an error. That way was tagged as both boundary=administrative > and natural=coastline and the nearby ones I checked are only tagged > as natural=coastline; as the way is in three different levels of > administrative boundary I removed the tags from the way itself. > (Note to Chris Hill, it is (or should be) fine if boundary relations > follow non boundary ways if for example the boundary does actually > follow the middle of a road or river). There is no need for any tagging on the ways if one is using a relation, however some people prefer to add tagging to the ways as well, although way tagging doesn't work for multiple admin-levels on the same way. It seems to be considered good etiquette to tag the ways simply with boundary=administrative which is also required for the boundaries to show up on Geofabrik - check the ward boundaries in Ipswich where there are ward boundary relations but little tagging on ways and you will see that the boundaries are recognised by Geofabrik but there are no actual boundaries shown. I am adding boundary=administration to the ways to make them look better. It is ok to tag was as boundary=administrative and also natural=coastline - it happens in many places. Some people lay an additional way on top of the road/river/coast for the boundary and some integrate the other feature as the boundary - both work fine. Ed: I notice you have tweeked the 'non-simple' way today. Do you think it is now simple? If not do you want to try and sort it. . > > I don't know how often geofabrik update their data, but as far as I > can see the boundary itself is fine, as evidenced by all the links > you sent where it looks OK, but to see whether it was just the pink > way upsetting it will probably take until after their next update. The date of the OSM dataset used is always at the bottom of the page and generally shows up in the early afternoon for the previous day. We should therefore see a resolution to the issue tomorrow afternoon assuming the non-simple way is fixed. I am also sure that is the problem because the other two boundaries that rely on the way are also broken, ie South East and Fareham - the South East certainly used to work at some point. Thanks, Peter > > Ed > > _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
