Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

On 19 March 2018 at 00:27, Dave F wrote: > It's been agreed they are redundant. Perhaps a bit too early for that statement, please note that the discussion on the osm-carto side is still ongoing:

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

:49:45 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags On 11/03/2018 09:51, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > * tagging the ways in addition to the relation is ok but not required. I agree with all your points except this. I think duplication is pr

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

Paul Norman wrote OSMBorder about a year ago to help with the border drawing. It generates a pgsql table with line strings (not polygons), each way having the lowest value for the "admin level". So if a way belongs to both a country and a city border, the

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

Yes, but again, irrelevant to this thread. On 12/03/2018 13:44, Jo wrote: Except of course, when the boundary is disputed, then there might be overlap and possibly even holes of no man's land? Polyglot 2018-03-12 13:41 GMT+01:00 Dave F

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

Except of course, when the boundary is disputed, then there might be overlap and possibly even holes of no man's land? Polyglot 2018-03-12 13:41 GMT+01:00 Dave F : > OK, I understand what you're trying to highlight, but don't see it as > relevant to this thread. >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

OK, I understand what you're trying to highlight, but don't see it as relevant to this thread. But anyway, the "boundary between two countries" can be distinguished as they'll have two relations with boundary data whereas "the high seas" boundary will only have one. DaveF. On 12/03/2018

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

> -Original Message- > From: Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com> > Sent: Monday, 12 March 2018 11:15 > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

W dniu 11.03.2018 o 23:50, Kevin Kenny pisze: A fair number of users here - including me - render our own maps, and are giving feedback based on our own experience with trying to render them. I know that in discussions on 'tagging' I try to hide the fact that wanting to render something is

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 7:24 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: [in reply to my message:] >> I'm sure that this difficulty is part of what motivates the OSM-Carto >> group to be requesting that all ways that participate in admin >> boundaries be tagged with the "most important" boundary in

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

On Monday 12 March 2018, Dave F wrote: > > > and it would not distinguish between the outer boundaries (towards > > the high seas) > > and the boundaries between two countries. > > Unsure what you mean. Could you elaborate, Example? > Sure: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/96104334 is an outer

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

On 11/03/2018 09:51, Christoph Hormann wrote: * tagging the ways in addition to the relation is ok but not required. I agree with all your points except this. I think duplication is prone to error & should be discouraged. DaveF. ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

On 10/03/2018 22:17, Christoph Hormann wrote: But as pointed out this will not be complete (though more complete than for land boundaries) I would much prefer to complete the addition of the unique tag 'maritime' than the duplicating 'admin_level' and it would not distinguish between the

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

On 3/12/2018 9:50 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Daniel Koć wrote: 3. The OSM community (as a whole) is blinded by the sound of term "tagging for rendering". I think it gave rendering pretty bad publicity, while in fact this is a tagging (!) problem

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Daniel Koć wrote: > 3. The OSM community (as a whole) is blinded by the sound of term > "tagging for rendering". I think it gave rendering pretty bad publicity, > while in fact this is a tagging (!) problem and is about making up false > data for

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

sent from a phone > On 10. Mar 2018, at 11:16, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > > In addition, the border ways can be other objects. Rivers are quite typical, > which are easily included in a border relation. Tagging all border properties > on the waterway leads to chaos. +1,

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

Thanks for writing this summary! It's short, but made me realize a few fundamental points: W dniu 11.03.2018 o 01:31, Matthijs Melissen pisze: > Just something I'd like to clarify: many of you seem to assume this > introduces a new tagging paradigm. The opposite is true: the proposal > uses a

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

Hi, On 10.03.2018 01:51, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > I would therefore suggest > to make sure admin_level tags are present on all > boundary=administrative ways. I can see how this makes rendering easier, but OSM isn't mainly a database for rendering. I don't see why a river that serves as an

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

On Sunday 11 March 2018, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > > Just something I'd like to clarify: many of you seem to assume this > introduces a new tagging paradigm. The opposite is true: the proposal > uses a tagging scheme that is already used in about 90 percent of the > countries, and the retagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

What is the intended usage of admin_level=0 then? 11-03-2018 01:17 tarihinde Christoph Hormann yazdı: > On Saturday 10 March 2018, Dave F wrote: >> I may be missing something, Christoph, but doesn't a combined search >> for admin_level=X & maritime=yes remove any misuse of the maritime >> tag &

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

On 10 March 2018 at 01:51, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > OpenStreetMap Carto, the default stylesheet on openstreetmap.org, is > considering to change the mechanism for rendering admin boundaries. > The proposed rendering of admin borders will be based on admin > boundary

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

On Saturday 10 March 2018, Dave F wrote: > > I may be missing something, Christoph, but doesn't a combined search > for admin_level=X & maritime=yes remove any misuse of the maritime > tag & produced the required solution? Looking for ways with boundary=administrative + admin_level=2 +

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

Thanks to Yves for pointing out the maritime tag. I may be missing something, Christoph, but doesn't a combined search for admin_level=X & maritime=yes remove any misuse of the maritime tag & produced the required solution? DaveF On 10/03/2018 19:16, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Saturday 10

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

On Saturday 10 March 2018, Dave F wrote: > If Matthijs wishes to distinguish between boundaries at sea (a good > idea, I believe) then a *unique* tag should be added to those ways. Note independent of the subject of this thread the tag maritime=yes - which is what is proposed to be used for

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

Hi dave, Am 10.03.2018 um 18:04 schrieb Dave F: How about boundary:administration=maritime (or something similar)? about 97% of all 12010 maritim admin boundaries (boundaries not on any land area) have been tagged with maritime=yes.

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

If Matthijs wishes to distinguish between boundaries at sea (a good idea, I believe) then a *unique* tag should be added to those ways. Duplicating data is not the way to indicate differences. How about boundary:administration=maritime (or something similar)? I've never understood why the

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

On 2018-03-10 11:56, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: > I agree that the priorities need to be codified (for the standard style), but > this remains unchanged, no matter if the boundaries are rendered by polygon > or by way. Sorry, you are right, I should have made that clear; I was

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

agging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags On 2018-03-10 11:31, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au <mailto:osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au> wrote: There is nothing about the data that's desired on the ways that requires any sort of human decision making, it can all be automatically

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

On 2018-03-10 11:31, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: >> There is nothing about the data that's desired on the ways that requires any >> sort of human decision making, it can all be automatically derived from >> information that's already available. One thing that should maybe be

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

's already available. > -Original Message- > From: Tom Pfeifer <t.pfei...@computer.org> > Sent: Saturday, 10 March 2018 20:17 > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags > > On 10.03.2018 09:36, Simon Po

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

On 10.03.2018 09:36, Simon Poole wrote: I would have to second this observation, this would seem to go exactly against what we've tried to fix with multi-polygons (not to mention a future area object type). Not to mention that a single way can be a member of multiple different borders at

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

This sounds like an absolutely horrible idea to me that totally goes against the tagging paradigms that have been in effect so far. Also, as Simon pointed out, a single way can belong to multiple multipolys at the same time, each with different admin levels, or even ways that in itself

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

Hi Jo, this IS a step backwards! please wait for the results of this discussion before changing anything. regards walter aka wambacher Am 10.03.2018 um 10:30 schrieb Jo: I added many borders in Uganda a few years ago, they are gray in your rendering. Should I go and put admin_level tags

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

I added many borders in Uganda a few years ago, they are gray in your rendering. Should I go and put admin_level tags on them now? For the highest or the lowest admin_level they are part of? Or a semicolon separated list...? Seems like a step backward to me, but I guess, whatever works.

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

On Saturday 10 March 2018, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > [...] This has a number of advantages - > for example, it will make it possible to style maritime boundaries > differently. I have already strongly voiced by opinion on this in the style development discussion:

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

I would have to second this observation, this would seem to go exactly against what we've tried to fix with multi-polygons (not to mention a future area object type). Not to mention that a single way can be a member of multiple different borders at different admin levels, so this would seem to be

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

Matthijs, This goes against the principle of tagging the relation, not the members. An admin area is syntactically analogous to a multipolygon and it would be a shame to introduce yet another polygon tagging paradigm. What are you thinking for other types of boundaries? boundary=political,