Re: [Talk-in] Administrative Boundary
Hi, I see the missing AL6 in India has been replaced by me a week or so ago according to its history. The replacement is relation 6532860. Though I cannot remember why I did it, whether I removed the previous one or found it missing. One AL6 in India has been deleted. It's just "gone", but we don't know why. Yes, that is one little problem in my analysis: if a rel is completely replaced by a newer one with another osm_id, it does not recognize this and will report an "missing error". The new relation should be listed in "added boundaries" the same or next day, but nobody cares - me too ;) i think, everything is fine. regards walter ___ Talk-in mailing list Talk-in@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
Re: [Talk-in] Administrative Boundary
I see the missing AL6 in India has been replaced by me a week or so ago according to its history. The replacement is relation 6532860. Though I cannot remember why I did it, whether I removed the previous one or found it missing. On 6 September 2016 at 08:20, Walter Nordmann wrote: > Hi, > > Yes, admin_boundaries should be relations (multipolygons) with this tags: > > type=boundary, boundary=administrative, admin_level=XX, name=YY. > > area=yes is not needed, because boundaries are always closed (or should be > ;)) and are describing an area. > > Just to be shure i checked Velur Ward IV https://openstreetmap.org/rela > tion/6526524 and it's looking fine. BUT there are remains of the old > boundary ways, which should be removed from OSM. > > See https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/images/osm/snaps_2016/Velur_Ward_IV.png > which shows a Josm view of that area. > Pink: new relation, red: old redundant ways, which should be removed. > > Regards > walter/germany > > btw: I'm doing a lot of stuff with boundaries. > > see https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/boundaries for QA and exporting > boundaries > and https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/index.php/projekte/internatio > nale-administrative-grenzen/missing-boundaries > > detail: https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/index.php/projekte/internatio > nale-administrative-grenzen/missing-boundaries/10-osm- > reports/667-countries-compare-2016-08-28 > One AL6 in India has been deleted. It's just "gone", but we don't know why. > > there will be a report every day. current day is still running. > > ___ > Talk-in mailing list > Talk-in@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in > ___ Talk-in mailing list Talk-in@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
[Talk-in] Administrative Boundary
Hi, Yes, admin_boundaries should be relations (multipolygons) with this tags: type=boundary, boundary=administrative, admin_level=XX, name=YY. area=yes is not needed, because boundaries are always closed (or should be ;)) and are describing an area. Just to be shure i checked Velur Ward IV https://openstreetmap.org/relation/6526524 and it's looking fine. BUT there are remains of the old boundary ways, which should be removed from OSM. See https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/images/osm/snaps_2016/Velur_Ward_IV.png which shows a Josm view of that area. Pink: new relation, red: old redundant ways, which should be removed. Regards walter/germany btw: I'm doing a lot of stuff with boundaries. see https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/boundaries for QA and exporting boundaries and https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/index.php/projekte/internationale-administrative-grenzen/missing-boundaries detail: https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/index.php/projekte/internationale-administrative-grenzen/missing-boundaries/10-osm-reports/667-countries-compare-2016-08-28 One AL6 in India has been deleted. It's just "gone", but we don't know why. there will be a report every day. current day is still running. ___ Talk-in mailing list Talk-in@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
