2014-05-14 4:51 GMT+02:00 Fernando Trebien :
> For a long time I believed that the
> only practical reason for placing "capital=yes" or "state_capital=yes"
> on a node was to help the renderer decide how to render the label; the
> renderer could then avoid the trouble of handling relations, even
>
In Brazil, admin_level=4 is state level, so it would be
state_capital=yes. I've never really thought about it in depth because
Brazil only has 2 administrative levels with a "capital" city and the
country only has 1 capital. This is how it looks like in Brazil now:
1. Node tagged as place=city+sta
Am 5/14/14 04:51 , schrieb Fernando Trebien:
For a long time I believed that the
only practical reason for placing "capital=yes" or "state_capital=yes"
on a node was to help the renderer decide how to render the label;
And what happens when go to admin_level=4?
__
openstreetmap.org/user
Applications could avoid that mess if they supported and preferred the
"admin_centre" role of relations. For a long time I believed that the
only practical reason for placing "capital=yes" or "state_capital=yes"
on a node was to help the renderer decide how to render the label; the
renderer could t
Please explain why admin_level on place nodes harms the database, or
refrain from removing it. Thanks.
I actually put it back in Berlin after I took a 2nd closer look at
Germany. Which then actually revealed that all our state capitals are
tagged with admin_level=6 when they should be 4 as far
> Am 13/mag/2014 um 19:06 schrieb John Packer :
>
> It certainly is not a "fact" that it is standard.
maybe you have to look how capitals are tagged and which of these tags are
there for a long time, to be convinced? Are you aware that this key is in
default.style?
cheers,
Martin
__
I really don't think this is considered a standard tag by most people.
In taginfo we can find keys like capital_city, capital_level, is_capital,
state_capital, capital.
As far as I saw, each key is concentrated on some parts of the globe.
It certainly is not a "fact" that it is standard.
I had cha
2014-05-13 17:24 GMT+02:00 John Packer :
> I still think it's needed to create a proper page for this key.
>
> I find it hard to see a proposal page with such a long discussion as some
> kind of standard.
>
I agree that the docu could be better here, and it would certainly be a
first step to move
I still think it's needed to create a proper page for this key.
I find it hard to see a proposal page with such a long discussion as some
kind of standard.
Em 13/05/2014 12:13, "Martin Koppenhoefer"
escreveu:
>
> 2014-05-13 16:54 GMT+02:00 John Packer :
>
>> Hi Martin, I was the one that marked
2014-05-13 17:25 GMT+02:00 Fernando Trebien :
> Hm, what does capital=8 mean? I've only seen the value capital=yes so far.
>
> It could be the result of a bad import.
>
it generally means capital (or admin_centre) of an admin_level=8 entity.
cheers,
Martin
__
Hm, what does capital=8 mean? I've only seen the value capital=yes so far.
It could be the result of a bad import.
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> 2014-05-13 16:54 GMT+02:00 John Packer :
>
>> Hi Martin, I was the one that marked the proposal for the key capital
2014-05-13 16:54 GMT+02:00 John Packer :
> Hi Martin, I was the one that marked the proposal for the key capital as
> cancelled (maybe abandoned was a better status).
> I did this because I saw it's use was a complete mess in tag info, and as
> far as I knew, admin_centre had the same purpose, so
Hi Martin, I was the one that marked the proposal for the key capital as
cancelled (maybe abandoned was a better status).
I did this because I saw it's use was a complete mess in tag info, and as
far as I knew, admin_centre had the same purpose, so I just wanted to help
to clean the wiki from it's
I surely could remove the warning I've added to the wiki, but please
first consider that, from the ~33 nodes with a place=* tag that
you mentioned, only 63762 (19%) are combined with an admin_level tag.
I've mentioned [1] many of important cities (in fact, secondary,
tertiary cities, right next
2014-05-13 15:02 GMT+02:00 Ilya Zverev :
>
> First, this discussion it seemed was about removing admin_level tags,
> and not straightening up the tagging schema. I posted my reply because
> I had seen the tag removed from Berlin, not replaced by another. Left
> there is capital=yes tag, which is s
Martin Koppenhoefer:
> admin_level has no real "definition" in the wiki what it is supposed to
> express: the key link redirects to boundary=administrative:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:admin_level#admin_level
>
> ...
>
> Now there is also a key "capital" that can tell the administrati
2014-05-13 14:20 GMT+02:00 Ilya Zverev :
> admin_level on place nodes surely duplicates admin_level tag value
> from one of relations which contain that node, but is that a bad
> thing?
>
> Did you try to calculate admin_level for a place in osm2pgsql
> database? I've spent two hours now trying to
Sorry, two facts that I forgot to check before sending the last mail.
1. There are 63762 place nodes with an admin_level in the database,
and ~330k other nodes with this tag. I guess it's too late to forbid
using the tag on nodes.
2. It's Berlin that was edited, not London:
http://www.openstreetm
Dear community, WTF?
admin_level on place nodes surely duplicates admin_level tag value
from one of relations which contain that node, but is that a bad
thing?
Did you try to calculate admin_level for a place in osm2pgsql
database? I've spent two hours now trying to construct and optimize an
SQL
I've added a note to the wiki to avoid future confusion:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aboundary%3Dadministrative&diff=1037547&oldid=1000731
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> 2014-05-11 3:50 GMT+02:00 Nelson A. de Oliveira :
>
>> Isn't "admin_l
2014-05-11 3:50 GMT+02:00 Nelson A. de Oliveira :
> Isn't "admin_level" a property of "boundary=administrative?" (that is
> also a an specialization of a "boundary" relation)
>
> Using "admin_level" outside (or without) a "boundary=administrative"
> relation will be as wrong/incomplete as using "s
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 10:37 AM, sabas88 wrote:
> In Italy we use capital=* with the corresponding (minimum) admin level, so
> Rome has capital=2 and so on..
That's for what 'admin_level' role has been created : to connect the
administrative place to its boundary. The modeling is better than
'c
In the German Forum we came to the conclusion that the idea probably was
to indicate it's the capital (which should be done with role:
admin_centre) http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=25418
I removed that Tag from Berlin.
Andi
Am 5/11/14 06:31 , schrieb Fernando Trebien:
Hm I've
See also the use of the admin_centre in boundary relations. This allows
a place to have a different role/importance for each admin area it is
in. An interesting case is Amsterdam, which is the capital of NL but not
the provincial capital of the province it is in (that's Haarlem). The
tagging ref
On 11 May 2014 06:32, "Fernando Trebien" wrote:
>
> Hm I've looked up a few other cities (Hamburg, Munich, Cologne, Lyon,
> Marseille, Rotterdam, Zurich, Manchester, Birmingham, Salzburg,
> Aarhus) and they do not have an admin_level tag on the place=* node.
> At the same time, I found some other
Hm I've looked up a few other cities (Hamburg, Munich, Cologne, Lyon,
Marseille, Rotterdam, Zurich, Manchester, Birmingham, Salzburg,
Aarhus) and they do not have an admin_level tag on the place=* node.
At the same time, I found some other cities that do: Paris [1],
Kopenhagen [2], Barcelona [3], M
Berlin
Honestly looks like and error nobody has noticed yet. I mean
admin_level=2 ? Berlin is a city state which might justify =4, but
unless we somehow tag capitals like this I don't see the reasoning
behind this tag in the first place.
Andi
__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.o
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> I think an explicit tagging scheme that specifies the correspondence between
> place=* tags and admin_level=* tags is a good thing.
Isn't "admin_level" a property of "boundary=administrative?" (that is
also a an specialization of a "b
I think an explicit tagging scheme that specifies the correspondence
between place=* tags and admin_level=* tags is a good thing.
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Fernando Trebien <
fernando.treb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> We're having a little discussion in the Brazilian communi
29 matches
Mail list logo
