On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 23:41:01 -0800, Sam Vekemans <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:02 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 21:43:17 -0800, Sam Vekemans >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > To understand, >> > is that bounding box/ polygon something that came from the source? >> > Or is it just the extents of the data? >> >> It is the bounding-box of all elements of the TMC LocationCodeList >> that state this TMC-area as their administrative area. >> It needs to be completely inside 2.6x the area of the OSM-Multipolygon/ >> Poylgon so we know to not have a city of the same name in a wrong country >> or state. >>
> Isn't that the purpose of having the 'is_in' tag? 1: Only very few objects have this tag. So I cannot require it. 2: In the same state there can be 2 villages with the same name. 3: I'm trying to match that I have the correct area. That it covers about the same geographic region is a sensible test to do. So, please no discussion about is_in here. This has nothing to do with the sanity-check. Any constructive comments about different sanity-checks and matching-rules I could add/change to find more of the areas automatically? Currently from the test-runs I estimate that in about 1/10th of the cases it can find a match. Marcus _______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
