On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Simone Cortesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> there is a good consensus on the fact that using a relation is a good > thing for borders: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Boundaries That leaves a lot to be desired for a description... After many hours of contemplation, and looking at the way surrounding the Vatican, I think I understand what it is that is being described. Rather than create yet another way to describe a border, one would rather simply include all the existing ways in a relation. The relation defining a border may include other ways that define roads, edges of woodland, rivers, or ways that only define the actual border. > or take a look at what I used when importing italian borders few weeks > ago: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Italian_Borders > > you need for the way: > <tag k="boundary" v="administrative" /> > <tag k="admin_level" v="a_number_2,4,6 or 8" /> > > for the relation: > <tag k="type" v="boundary" /> > <tag k="boundary" v="administrative" /> The boundary page describes this format: boundary=administrative + admin_level=2 But how do you apply either of these in the real world? My tool of choice is Potlatch. So, if I took 4 ways (roads for example) that defined a quadrilateral, and added them to a relation, and then defined that relation as a boundary, with an appropriate admin_level, I should get a border drawn on the map. James _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
