Richard Welty <[email protected]> writes: > On 12/2/13 2:13 PM, Paul Norman wrote: >>> From: Andrew Guertin [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Subject: Re: [Imports] Vermont Town boundaries from VCGI >>> >>> I currently have boundary=administrative on the relations representing >>> each town, and nothing on the member ways. There doesn't seem to be >>> complete consensus on whether member ways should also be marked >>> boundary=administrative, with it being inconsistently applied in the >>> areas of neighboring states I checked. I decided to not duplicate the >>> information. >> The rule is to have boundary=administrative on the member ways with the >> numerically lowest admin_level of any of its relations. >> > ok i can go with that. but most of what i'm seeing does the opposite, i'm > seeing lots of admin_level=8 tags on ways that are part of higher level > boundaries.
Why should member ways have any boundary tags? Once the relation has the right value, it just seems like noise.
pgpigdrR4j2Ym.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
