Martin, thanks for pointing that out. I should clarify. I'm not against this import so long as the community thinks boundaries are good for OSM. As for the place=* tags, if there isn't a conflict in placing them both on the boundary and a node, then so be it.
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected] > wrote: > > 2014-05-04 20:59 GMT+02:00 Elliott Plack <[email protected]>: > > In my experience, place=hamlet,village,town,city are *better placed as >> nodes* at the boundary centroid, rather than with ways representing the >> boundary. Mapnik and Mapbox use the nodes rather than the boundary lines to >> render. I am pretty familiar with place=* tags. Importing the boundaries >> are nice in terms of getting that data out there for all to see, but for >> place mapping consider adding nodes at the centroids. >> > > > > I think that both are valueable information, a place polygon (not to > confuse with the administrative boundary, which often incorporates also > fields, forests etc.) could be used to describe the area of the settlement > (shape and size) and the place node can be used to indicate the more or > less obvious centre point (e.g. for routing without a specific address, for > low scale maprendering / labeling etc.). > > As all settlements do have a spatial extension I fail to understand how > omitting this would be "better". > > cheers, > Martin > > -- Elliott Plack http://about.me/elliottp
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
