Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

Hi Marc, Thanks, that looks promising... I notice it starts from a Nominatim lookup (geocodeArea:Kent). The wiki indicates it uses the first result returned by Nominatim. Sometimes there are several entities with the same name and I need to be able to select a specific one. How can I start

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

updated query [out:json][timeout:25]; ( rel[admin_level=8](area:3600172385); ); out meta; This does not display a result in the "Map" part of overpass-turbo, as the nodes and the ways are not included. Things can only be drawn when they are included, Look in the "Data" tab. I'm not sure

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

So these tools are recursing down into relations which are members of the higher-level relation, and then recursing down again? Is that not configurable One concrete use case is "return the boundary relations for the constituent parts of a given boundary relation", for example "all the

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

2015-11-27 12:02 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale : > One concrete use case is "return the boundary relations for the > constituent parts of a given boundary relation", for example "all the > district councils in Kent" you can do this with overpass API (if all boundaries are

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

On 2015-11-27 10:06, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : > > 2015-11-26 21:12 GMT+01:00 André Pirard >: > > It is even mandatory when you have to make nested boundaries that > have no admin_level like the two boundary systems we have in

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

On 2015-11-27 10:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : > > 2015-11-26 20:24 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale >: > > I use the subarea member because it makes cross-checking easy. > Have all the lower-level boundaries in my higher-level admin area >

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

Can you give the query for this? The relation for Kent is 172385, and I want to retrieve the relations for the 12 Districts it contains. On 2015-11-27 13:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2015-11-27 12:02 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale : > >> One concrete use case is "return

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

On 2015-11-27 22:16, Georg Feddern wrote : > Am 27.11.2015 um 15:46 schrieb André Pirard: >> Have you noticed that some borderlines are *hexaplicated* (that they >> appear in 6 different relations) and that *that* is unhealthy >> redundancy that is made unnecessary by subareas? >> >> And that,

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

Am 27.11.2015 um 15:46 schrieb André Pirard: Have you noticed that some borderlines are *hexaplicated* (that they appear in 6 different relations) and that *that* is unhealthy redundancy that is made unnecessary by subareas? And that, unlike wanting to destroy an enemy, the programs I spoke

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

Re: Belgium: I thought at first that the Official Language could be a simple attribute (French, Flemish, French/Flemish bilingual, or German) of a municipality, but I read on Wikipedia that there are actually parliaments for the language communities, which do not exactly coincide with the three

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

On 2015-11-27 13:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : > > 2015-11-27 12:02 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale >: > > One concrete use case is "return the boundary relations for the > constituent parts of a given boundary relation", for example "all >

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > 172385 something like http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/cY4 ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

Martin, I stated my point of view - I find it useful with clear added value. You "don't see the point". Fair enough, we don't have to agree. Can you describe some *real problems* the use of "subarea" causes? Can you provide any *workable* alternative for the parties which DO support its use?

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

2015-11-27 10:54 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale : > Can you describe some *real problems* the use of "subarea" causes? Can you > provide any *workable* alternative for the parties which DO support its > use? I thought that the "O" stood for "Open". Mappers who don't know about > it

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

2015-11-26 20:24 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale : > I use the subarea member because it makes cross-checking easy. Have all > the lower-level boundaries in my higher-level admin area been added to OSM? what comes next? Have all the roads in a given administrative area listed with

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

2015-11-26 21:12 GMT+01:00 André Pirard : > It is even mandatory when you have to make nested boundaries that have no > admin_level like the two boundary systems we have in Belgium (political and > linguistic). can you give an example how this is modeled, e.g. a

[Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

I just noticed that a lot of boundary relations have the lower ranking parts included as members with the "subarea" role. This role is documented here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary But I wonder how it got on this definition page. Was this discussed anywhere? I don't think

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

It's an handy and intuitive way of organizing boundaries in a neat hierarchy visible from the database itself. Take for example this boundary [1]. If the subarea role was deprecated then it would be a lot harder of finding out which are its father, grandfather, etc. relations, which would make

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

I use the subarea member because it makes cross-checking easy. Have all the lower-level boundaries in my higher-level admin area been added to OSM? Unfortunately the various admin levels do not always form a strict hierarchy. A small area at (lets say) admin_level=10 might be enclosed

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

On 2015-11-26 20:08, Marcos Oliveira wrote : It's an handy and intuitive way of organizing boundaries in a neat hierarchy visible from the database itself. It is even mandatory when you have to make nested boundaries that have no admin_level