Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
Surely the boundary way itself is unlikely to have a name, other than a synthetic a/b boundary? Unless of course the name refers to some feature like a road or a river which in a specific case may be part of the boundary. As administrative bodies (and their boundaries) are usually hierarchical in nature, it feels a more natural fit to allow segments of a boundary way to be shared between admin areas at different levels, which are defined in relations. All the names and other characteristics of the admin unit go on the relation, and the ways which represent segments of the boundaries don't need tags at all (although a basic boundary=administrative is usually applied to make them render, although this should not be required). In this way there are no conflicts in the tagging. There is also a single point of definition for the name of the admin unit; any changes only need to be made on the relation, and do not need propagating to the constituent ways. The discussion then shifts to the rendering - how do you control how boundaries are rendered? What is to be the text on the boundary - if any? Let's not make the tagging suboptimal for the sake of getting our preferred text to show up on the map. This is called tagging for the renderer and we don't do that. Colin On 2013-11-06 10:31, Pieren wrote: Now I see that the county free big city. is incorrect. If the admin level exists but is just matching another level boundary, we duplicate the relation in my country since years. See for instance - Paris, the municipality (city), level 8 : http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/7444 [1] - Paris, the departement (equ. to your county), level 6 : http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/71525 [2] (there is even one for admin_level 7) We just had a dispute about the tag name. Some countries seem to apply a different name for the county and the city relation. Two examples: - Orange county (vs Orange) in US : http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/396466 [3] - Canton Capellen (vs Capellen) in Luxemburg : http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/407813 [4] Personnally, I'm in favour to apply the same policy in France where others said that the tag admin_level is providing the information. Pieren Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [5] Links: -- [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/7444 [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/71525 [3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/396466 [4] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/407813 [5] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: Surely the boundary way itself is unlikely to have a name, other than a synthetic a/b boundary? To clarify, my remark was just about the tag name in the two relations which are indeed identical excepted the admin_level value. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
OK, sorry if I misunderstood. On 2013-11-06 11:25, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: Surely the boundary way itself is unlikely to have a name, other than a synthetic a/b boundary? To clarify, my remark was just about the tag name in the two relations which are indeed identical excepted the admin_level value. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1] Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
2013/11/6 Pieren pier...@gmail.com Now I see that the county free big city. is incorrect. If the admin level exists but is just matching another level boundary, we duplicate the relation in my country since years. See for instance - Paris, the municipality (city), level 8 : http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/7444 - Paris, the departement (equ. to your county), level 6 : http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/71525 (there is even one for admin_level 7) but ARE there such things as Paris level 8 AND Paris level 6 (i.e. are there governments for both levels, or is there only one government?), or is there just one Paris level 6 which has also the competence/duties/power over what elsewhere has a distinct legal body with levels 7 or 8? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: but ARE there such things as Paris level 8 AND Paris level 6 (i.e. are there governments for both levels, or is there only one government?), or is there just one Paris level 6 which has also the competence/duties/power over what elsewhere has a distinct legal body with levels 7 or 8? It's two different adminitrative levels. In this particular case, it's also two different administrations but does it count since we just identify admin boundaries ? Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
2013/11/6 Pieren pier...@gmail.com It's two different adminitrative levels. In this particular case, it's also two different administrations but does it count since we just identify admin boundaries ? good question, one might argue that if there is only one administration, maybe there aren't two administrative boundaries, but just one, with a missing level (not all levels have to occur everywhere, there might be exceptions where some levels, usually found in a specific country, simply don't exist). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:32:08PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2013/11/6 Pieren pier...@gmail.com It's two different adminitrative levels. In this particular case, it's also two different administrations but does it count since we just identify admin boundaries ? good question, one might argue that if there is only one administration, maybe there aren't two administrative boundaries, but just one, with a missing level (not all levels have to occur everywhere, there might be exceptions where some levels, usually found in a specific country, simply don't exist). With the German Kreisfreie Staedte these Citys take the administrative Burden from the coutnys and citys. So i think do we have more than one administrative instance is bogus. They take both level of administrative functionality. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
Administrative boundaries are defined by a unique administrative instance ? Let's take the problem the other way around: Is this boundary x an admin level 6? If yes, create a level 6 relation. Is this boundary x an admin level 8? If yes, create a level 8 relation. Do you want to know if a relation is similar to another one ? Define 'similar', download data and consume it, as a data consumer, a geocoder and a renderer would. Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de a écrit : On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:32:08PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2013/11/6 Pieren pier...@gmail.com It's two different adminitrative levels. In this particular case, it's also two different administrations but does it count since we just identify admin boundaries ? good question, one might argue that if there is only one administration, maybe there aren't two administrative boundaries, but just one, with a missing level (not all levels have to occur everywhere, there might be exceptions where some levels, usually found in a specific country, simply don't exist). With the German Kreisfreie Staedte these Citys take the administrative Burden from the coutnys and citys. So i think do we have more than one administrative instance is bogus. They take both level of administrative functionality. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
2013/11/6 Yves yve...@gmail.com Let's take the problem the other way around: Is this boundary x an admin level 6? If yes, create a level 6 relation. Is this boundary x an admin level 8? If yes, create a level 8 relation. Do you want to know if a relation is similar to another one ? Define 'similar', download data and consume it, as a data consumer, a geocoder and a renderer would. +1, easy, although in another case: Is this boundary x an admin level 4? --yes, create a level 4 relation. Is this boundary x an admin level 6? -- no, do not create a level 6 relation now, where are the level 6 relations inside this level 4 entity, I can find level 8 and 10 but where are the level 6? There are none. Why are there none? a) they do not exist b) they are not mapped or otherwise broken In some cases a) seems to be true (Stadtstaaten Hamburg and Berlin, the city is a Land, no level 6 entity), creating problems in various apps like Nominatim. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
Hi, in Germany we have the concept of countys and citys within those countys. E.g. admin_level=8 within admin_level=6. Now as an exception every rule follows bigger citys are their own countys, or dont belong to a county. (Kreisfreie Städte) Administrative wise these citys take all administrative burden of the countys and their respective citys, so they are admin_level 6 AND 8. The problem which arises now is that these citys are currently tagged with an admin boundary of admin_level=6. Thus nominatim is not able to find whether this is a real county or a county free big city. The result is that nominatim returns the name of the city in the county address detail and no city (due to the lack of further admin_level 8 boundarys). A fix would be an admin_level=6;8 on the boundary or duplicating the relation. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote: A fix would be an admin_level=6;8 on the boundary or duplicating the relation. I'm surprised you still have such questions in Germany. Your description is not clear since you don't explain what is on the way and what is on the relation. But I can tell how it *should* be : on the boudary way : put the highest admin level (thus, with the lowest numerical number). And create one relation per admin_level, obviously. What I guess is that the admin_level on the way is just used for rendering purpose, not by nominatim which should exclusively work with admin boundary relations or place nodes. For the county free big city, simply don't create a relation with admin_level 6 but keep only the one exclusively for admin_level 8. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
In the UK we do the opposite. In Unitary Authorities, which combine the role of the county with the district (sounds like the same as the Kreisfreie Staedte) we tag the UA as admin_level=6, i.e. at the same level as counties, and not admin_level=8 which is the level for the districts. We also occasionally use designation with specific values (from a controlled vocabulary) to distinguish between the different entities which may share an admin level. Colin On 2013-11-05 16:55, Pieren wrote: On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote: A fix would be an admin_level=6;8 on the boundary or duplicating the relation. I'm surprised you still have such questions in Germany. Your description is not clear since you don't explain what is on the way and what is on the relation. But I can tell how it *should* be : on the boudary way : put the highest admin level (thus, with the lowest numerical number). And create one relation per admin_level, obviously. What I guess is that the admin_level on the way is just used for rendering purpose, not by nominatim which should exclusively work with admin boundary relations or place nodes. For the county free big city, simply don't create a relation with admin_level 6 but keep only the one exclusively for admin_level 8. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1] Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
Hi, On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 06:18:44PM +0100, Colin Smale wrote: In the UK we do the opposite. In Unitary Authorities, which combine the role of the county with the district (sounds like the same as the Kreisfreie Staedte) we tag the UA as admin_level=6, i.e. at the same level as counties, and not admin_level=8 which is the level for the districts. We also occasionally use designation with specific values (from a controlled vocabulary) to distinguish between the different entities which may share an admin level. How do you distinct the Unitary Authorities with countys based on the relation data? For Germany the name on the relation is in fact the citys name not the countys but you cant tell which is which. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 04:55:42PM +0100, Pieren wrote: On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote: A fix would be an admin_level=6;8 on the boundary or duplicating the relation. I'm surprised you still have such questions in Germany. Your description is not clear since you don't explain what is on the way and what is on the relation. But I can tell how it *should* be : on The way is irrelevant. The admin boundarys is a collection of ways, be it waterways, highways or other ways making up the boundary. The relation contains an admin_level=6 which is the level for Countys. With the Kreisfreie Städte the name on _that_ relation is actually the Citys name although the level would imply it to be the countys name. So nominatim is right to show the name as the countys name as thats exactly what has been tagged. But its not only the countys name but more the citys name. the boudary way : put the highest admin level (thus, with the lowest numerical number). And create one relation per admin_level, obviously. What I guess is that the admin_level on the way is just used for rendering purpose, not by nominatim which should exclusively work with admin boundary relations or place nodes. How would nominatim really find adresses belonging to a place/city? We have been there in 2008 without any boundarys and it was a mess to decide which place node this address belongs to - distance is not a measure for choosing your place. For the county free big city, simply don't create a relation with admin_level 6 but keep only the one exclusively for admin_level 8. The point is that the administrative boundarys is one of level 6 AND level 8. - if you only put a level 8 on the relation you loose the information about the importance of the administrative city. - if you only put a level 6 on the relation you loose the information about the city. A county will be the same as the countyless city which it isnt - and there is no way to tell if this is a county without any fine grained boundarys or a countyless city.. This is what we have right now. - If you create both relations e.g. 6 _and_ 8 in seperate relations its not easy to tell whether this is really a countyless city unless geometrically comparing the boundary. So we need a better way to mark multi level admin boundarys. admin_level=6;8 could be a solution. Or a new tag like admin_level=6 admin_level_low=8 or admin_level_range=6-8 Just brainstorming. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
2013/11/5 Pieren pier...@gmail.com I'm surprised you still have such questions in Germany. Your description is not clear since you don't explain what is on the way and what is on the relation. it shouldn't matter. Mostly you don't need a relation at all (if not to reduce redundancy by overlapping ways), as long as there aren't enclaves/exclaves involved. Actually the ways don't have to be any tags at all (IMHO), but boundary=administrative surely helps to reduce destruction by mappers with less capable editors (those that don't expose relations). But I can tell how it *should* be : on the boudary way : put the highest admin level (thus, with the lowest numerical number). And create one relation per admin_level, obviously. for which admin levels? For all admin levels there would be if it wasn't an exception? If they are admin_level=6 and there is no 8 in this case? There is a similar case with Bremen, Hamburg and Berlin, which are level 4 (and 6 and 5?). I'd also use distinct relations for admin_level=6 and 4 in this case, but this is disputed in the German comunity. For the county free big city, simply don't create a relation with admin_level 6 but keep only the one exclusively for admin_level 8. -1, as they are at the same level as a county (or Berlin/Hamburg/Bremen is at the same level as a Bundesland) they should definitely be admin_level=4 (or 6 in Flos example), but the question is if we should also make a relation with admin_level=6 or 8. IMHO yes. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 05.11.2013 16:22, Florian Lohoff wrote: A fix would be an admin_level=6;8 on the boundary or duplicating the relation. Duplicating the relation seems easiest and is what I'd probably do, but of course it is not 100% correct as there aren't two different admin boundaries (or, in the case of Hamburg, and Berlin, three - here admin_levels 4,6,8 are folded into one). Brian Quinion has actually attempted to duplicate the Bremen admin boundary for this very reason in early 2013 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14997436 and the edit was promptly reverted by user adjuva http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16623822 who claimed that his was tagging for the geocoder. So if we wanted to make it a rule that boundaries are duplicated, we'll certainly have some explaining to do. Bye Frederik - -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSeVUFAAoJEOx/uhGAJu9HpOkH/3U/bfJINBRQg6e6tpf2Yr4B c7YHqiZ4gLBX3eVaUuLwkaRvWH0rR/cv2aVBRYPknY717cEMuz77VmLEa2ybTL9H RaNDX6VSYUTKgdmfNKv1mSx+jcB/CPDBFI8aReWY9thOKl9LKdA/O1fka8DMTgOn XNWxuxIeKbx01DM35H0tMbcW7h/7IHLN0vPIUFJdloYKGLmIly/LHIjD9BqLG1Uo hUBNHG6Yekkrmi9vPlXKyK4AluxQfjHI2KCzE0xXKuAOXoB+R3PSOKhG44J9ReW/ NR/sa2ZduU0xAp3yyx1JI48in0aos/iaeRVmGKcgcQVRYZ/l7hKtEvRAz3O+T/Y= =WoRT -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Duplicating the relation seems easiest and is what I'd probably do, but of course it is not 100% correct as there aren't two different admin boundaries (or, in the case of Hamburg, and Berlin, three - here admin_levels 4,6,8 are folded into one). So if we wanted to make it a rule that boundaries are duplicated, we'll certainly have some explaining to do. Maybe we can apply the idea of a geometric relation (I think first proposed by Frederik, I believe) and use that as a member for an administrative relation. The geometric relation is tagged like a multipolygon and only represents the boundary as an abstract line. Then we have several admin boundary relations of different admin_level=* tags that has this geometric relation as a member. Cons: 1. We would have 1 more relation to deal with 2. The relation-in-a-relation concept is complicated Pros: 1. It would be slightly easier to determine that two admin_level boundaries are coincident without doing geometric calculations or member comparisons. Now that I've written the above, I think the complexity is too big for the problem it solves. So I'm in favor of duplicated relations. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
