Andy Allan wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:09 PM, David Earl<da...@frankieandshadow.com> wrote: > >> The reason I gave was for name searching, not routing. It allows the >> result of a search to be given a descriptive context that isn't >> currently possible any other way. > > It allows the result of a search to be given a descriptive context > that isn't currently possible in any other way *that you want to > code*.
that I want to code *now*. I did say in my first message that polygons were desirable, I just don't want to throw away what we've got until such time as the various solutions and data that have been mentioned are in place. is_in is a pragmatic solution to a problem we haven't *yet* solved another way. I have lots of ideas of things I would like to do with searching which would be vastly easier if we had boundary tests, and as it happens I have been thinking about ways to address this before this debate, so I may well be the person who ends up writing some code to do this. Regarding inconsistency, yes that's a problem for automatic processing (though not insurmountable in most cases, just makes it a bit more complicated). For human readers though its a doddle, and in the case of the Syndey suburbs, at least you can read in a set of search results that this one is in Australia not Canada. If there's errors in them, I don't see the difference between those and any other errors in the map. David _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
