On Jan 18, 2008 9:01 AM, Lester Caine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > > On Jan 18, 2008 3:42 PM, Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I don't have any particular objections against your proposal (although > it is > >> somewhat complex), but I still think geographic boundaries are the way > to > >> go. Which do you think will happen first: Creation of boundaries and a > way > >> to quickly query a point against them (or rather the reverse: given a > point, > >> return the boundaries), or tagging of nearly every object in the > database > >> with an is_in tag? > > > > FWIW, with the coastline checker being basically done, I'm considering > > applying the same process to boundaries, a boundary checker. As a > > side-effect it will produce a shapefile of all the boundaries, which > > can be efficiently queried for is_in-ness... > > The problem will be checking every boundary found near the object being > inspected, which requires all of those boundaries to be complete and > closed. > Working against an is_in key eliminates all of that processing when trying > to > find things and will work for boundaries for which the boundary data is > incomplete. At some point in the future the is_in keys could be > automatically > build or corrected when a boundary is edited. However the automatic > population > would not be able to easily stablish that a particular boundary is within > a > larger on, at which point the is_in flag for the higher levels become even > more important? > > -- > Lester Caine - G8HFL >
But Martijn's coastline checker is perfectly suited for checking the completeness of the boundaries. I still maintain that getting correct boundaries and a method to query them are going to be the most expedient path compared to tagging every object inside the boundaries (which would be a maintenance nightmare anyway). Karl
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
