Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 15, 2020, 04:05 by bradha...@fastmail.com:

>
>
> On 5/14/20 5:53 PM, Mateusz Konieczny  via Tagging wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> May 15, 2020, 01:36 by >> jm...@gmx.com>> :
>>
>>> On 5/14/2020 12:07 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via  Tagging wrote:
>>>
 May 14, 2020, 16:40 by  jm...@gmx.com :

> On 5/14/2020 10:01 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:48AM Steve Doerr <>> 
>> doerr.step...@gmail.com>> >wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote:
>>>


 On Wed, May 13,2020, 17:44 Jmapb 
 < jm...@gmx.com >wrote:

> Regarding the original question --  
> in what circumstances are  
> single-member walking/hiking/biking  
> route relations a good mapping  
> practice -- what would be your answer?
>

 Always

>>>
>>> Doesn't that violate>>> 
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element>>> 
>>>  ?
>>>
>>
>> No.  The route traverses the way, it's not theway. 
>>
>
> Okay. But surely this doesn't mean that every named  footway 
> or path should be part of a route relation. 
>
>
> The bike trail that brad linked to, > 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6632400>  -- I've never been 
> there but I don't offhand see any  reason to call it a route. 
> (Brad has been there, I assume,  because it looks like he 
> updated it 2 days ago.) There's  no information in the 
> relation tags that isn't also on the  way itself. Is there 
> any benefit to creating a route  relation in cases like this?
>
>
 Better handling of future way splits, consistency.

>>>
>>> I can see the advantage of using a route relation as a  somewhat 
>>> future-proof persistent identity -- a relation URL  that will show 
>>> the whole trail even if the way is split to add  a bridge, specify 
>>> surface, etc. At the same time, though, it  feels like a bit of a 
>>> stretch to declare any named trail of  any length as a route, 
>>>
>>>
>> Named way is not enough to be a route.
>>
>> Named path across forest is just a path. Route would be asigned path 
>> through a forest,
>> with two objects:
>>
>> - path across forest (with or without name)
>> - signed route (that has some topology, signs, maybe also aname)
>>
>>
> So you're saying any path with a sign should be a route.   Shouldthat 
> extend to all tracks, and roads of all varieties also?    Iassume you are 
> not limiting this to 'path across forest', it couldbe path across desert, 
>  or prairie, or town park?
>  
>
Any signed route may be mapped as a route relation.

But in many cases there will be a sign, without a route. "Beware of a dog" sign
does not mean that there is a route there.

And sometimes signed route will be signed with paint markings on trees,
or by piles of rocks or by some other method rather than be a sign.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

[brad]

On 5/14/20 5:53 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




May 15, 2020, 01:36 by jm...@gmx.com:

On 5/14/2020 12:07 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

May 14, 2020, 16:40 by jm...@gmx.com :

On 5/14/2020 10:01 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:



On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:48 AM Steve Doerr
mailto:doerr.step...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote:



On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb mailto:jm...@gmx.com>> wrote:

Regarding the original question -- in what
circumstances are single-member
walking/hiking/biking route relations a good
mapping practice -- what would be your answer?


Always


Doesn't that

violatehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element
?


No.  The route traverses the way, it's not the way.


Okay. But surely this doesn't mean that every named footway
or path should be part of a route relation.

The bike trail that brad linked to,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6632400 -- I've never
been there but I don't offhand see any reason to call it a
route. (Brad has been there, I assume, because it looks like
he updated it 2 days ago.) There's no information in the
relation tags that isn't also on the way itself. Is there any
benefit to creating a route relation in cases like this?

Better handling of future way splits, consistency.


I can see the advantage of using a route relation as a somewhat
future-proof persistent identity -- a relation URL that will show
the whole trail even if the way is split to add a bridge, specify
surface, etc. At the same time, though, it feels like a bit of a
stretch to declare any named trail of any length as a route,

Named way is not enough to be a route.

Named path across forest is just a path. Route would be a signed path 
through a forest,

with two objects:

- path across forest (with or without name)
- signed route (that has some topology, signs, maybe also a name)

So you're saying any path with a sign should be a route.   Should that 
extend to all tracks, and roads of all varieties also?    I assume you 
are not limiting this to 'path across forest', it could be path across 
desert,  or prairie, or town park?


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 15, 2020, 01:36 by jm...@gmx.com:

> On 5/14/2020 12:07 PM, Mateusz  Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>> May 14, 2020, 16:40 by >> jm...@gmx.com>> :
>>
>>> On 5/14/2020 10:01 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>>


 On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:48 AMSteve Doerr < 
 doerr.step...@gmail.com >wrote:

> On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 13, 2020,17:44 Jmapb <>> 
>> jm...@gmx.com>> >wrote:
>>
>>> Regarding the original question -- in  what 
>>> circumstances are single-member  
>>> walking/hiking/biking route relations a  
>>> good mapping practice -- what would be  
>>> your answer?
>>>
>>
>> Always
>>
>
> Doesn't that violate> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element>  ?
>

 No.  The route traverses the way, it's not the way. 

>>>
>>> Okay. But surely this doesn't mean that every named footway  or 
>>> path should be part of a route relation. 
>>>
>>>
>>> The bike trail that brad linked to, >>> 
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6632400>>>  -- I've never been there 
>>> but I don't offhand see any reason to  call it a route. (Brad has 
>>> been there, I assume, because it  looks like he updated it 2 days 
>>> ago.) There's no information  in the relation tags that isn't also 
>>> on the way itself. Is  there any benefit to creating a route 
>>> relation in cases like  this?
>>>
>>>
>> Better handling of future way splits, consistency.
>>
>
> I can see the advantage of using a route relation as a somewhat  
> future-proof persistent identity -- a relation URL that will show  the 
> whole trail even if the way is split to add a bridge, specify  surface, 
> etc. At the same time, though, it feels like a bit of a  stretch to 
> declare any named trail of any length as a route, 
>
>
Named way is not enough to be a route.

Named path across forest is just a path. Route would be a signed path through a 
forest,
with two objects:

- path across forest (with or without name)
- signed route (that has some topology, signs, maybe also a name)


>  might consider explaining it on the  wiki. The current language uses a 
> lot of plurals...
>
>
>
> "may go along roads or trails or combinations of these"
>  "consist of paths taken repeatedly"
>  "Add all different ways of the foot/hiking route to this relation.  The 
> order of the ways matters."
>
>
>
>
> ... which leaves mappers like me & Brad scratching our heads  when we 
> encounter one of these singleton routes.
>
>
> J
>
>
Not sure is it the best place (someone again decided to go crazy with 
templates), but
I made
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATagging_scheme_for_hiking_and_foot_route_relations=revision=1991147=1988978
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

[Jmapb]

On 5/14/2020 12:07 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

May 14, 2020, 16:40 by jm...@gmx.com:

On 5/14/2020 10:01 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:



On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:48 AM Steve Doerr
mailto:doerr.step...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote:



On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb mailto:jm...@gmx.com>> wrote:

Regarding the original question -- in what circumstances
are single-member walking/hiking/biking route relations
a good mapping practice -- what would be your answer?


Always


Doesn't that
violatehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element
?


No.  The route traverses the way, it's not the way.


Okay. But surely this doesn't mean that every named footway or
path should be part of a route relation.

The bike trail that brad linked to,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6632400 -- I've never been
there but I don't offhand see any reason to call it a route. (Brad
has been there, I assume, because it looks like he updated it 2
days ago.) There's no information in the relation tags that isn't
also on the way itself. Is there any benefit to creating a route
relation in cases like this?

Better handling of future way splits, consistency.


I can see the advantage of using a route relation as a somewhat
future-proof persistent identity -- a relation URL that will show the
whole trail even if the way is split to add a bridge, specify surface,
etc. At the same time, though, it feels like a bit of a stretch to
declare any named trail of any length as a route, and I'm not inclined
to tack route relations overtop of the single-segment trails I'm working
on (unless they're long or part of a network.)

As I mentioned, I suspect that a large force behind this is mappers
wishing certain trails to be processed or rendered differently by
various third-party software. Regardless, if there really is burgeoning
enthusiasm for this technique, one of you single-segment route advocates
might consider explaining it on the wiki. The current language uses a
lot of plurals...

"may go along roads or trails or combinations of these"
"consist of paths taken repeatedly"
"Add all different ways of the foot/hiking route to this relation. The
order of the ways matters."

... which leaves mappers like me & Brad scratching our heads when we
encounter one of these singleton routes.

J

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 14, 2020, 16:40 by jm...@gmx.com:

> On 5/14/2020 10:01 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:48AM Steve Doerr <>> 
>> doerr.step...@gmail.com>> >wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote:
>>>


 On Wed, May 13,2020, 17:44 Jmapb < 
 jm...@gmx.com >wrote:

> Regarding the original question -- in what  
> circumstances are single-member  
> walking/hiking/biking route relations a good  
> mapping practice -- what would be your answer?
>

 Always

>>>
>>> Doesn't that violate>>> 
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element>>>  ?
>>>
>>
>> No.  The route traverses the way, it's not the way. 
>>
>
> Okay. But surely this doesn't mean that every named footway or  path 
> should be part of a route relation. 
>
>
> The bike trail that brad linked to, > 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6632400>  -- I've never been there but 
> I don't offhand see any reason to  call it a route. (Brad has been there, 
> I assume, because it looks  like he updated it 2 days ago.) There's no 
> information in the  relation tags that isn't also on the way itself. Is 
> there any  benefit to creating a route relation in cases like this?
>
>
Better handling of future way splits, consistency.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-05-14 14:07, Paul Allen wrote:

> On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 12:58, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote: 
> 
>>> On 14. May 2020, at 13:16, Paul Allen  wrote:
>>> 
>>> It makes it more difficult to the extent that a decision has to be made as 
>>> to
>>> whether we treat the NHS in the UK as a whole as admin level 1 or NHS Wales
>>> as admin level 1.  Or some other hierarchical arrangement.  Or not bother
>>> mapping it.
>> 
>> level 1 is improbable because level 2 is the national level.
> 
> Increment my numbers, then.

Anyway, getting back to the original subject... Should these NHS area
boundaries be tagged as "boundary=administrative" or something else like
"boundary=state_healthcare"? They are obviously used for some kind of
administration, but my vote would be for the latter.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

[Jmapb]

On 5/14/2020 10:01 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:



On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:48 AM Steve Doerr mailto:doerr.step...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote:



On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb mailto:jm...@gmx.com>> wrote:

Regarding the original question -- in what circumstances are
single-member walking/hiking/biking route relations a good
mapping practice -- what would be your answer?


Always


Doesn't that violate
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element ?


No.  The route traverses the way, it's not the way.


Okay. But surely this doesn't mean that every named footway or path
should be part of a route relation.

The bike trail that brad linked to,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6632400 -- I've never been there
but I don't offhand see any reason to call it a route. (Brad has been
there, I assume, because it looks like he updated it 2 days ago.)
There's no information in the relation tags that isn't also on the way
itself. Is there any benefit to creating a route relation in cases like
this?

J
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:48 AM Steve Doerr  wrote:

> On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb  wrote:
>
>> Regarding the original question -- in what circumstances are
>> single-member walking/hiking/biking route relations a good mapping practice
>> -- what would be your answer?
>>
>
> Always
>
>
> Doesn't that violate
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element ?
>

No.  The route traverses the way, it's not the way.  You know what does
violate one feature, one element?  Putting highway route numbers on the way
instead of exclusively in the relation.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 14. May 2020, at 12:49, Steve Doerr  wrote:
> 
> Doesn't that violate 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element ?


it doesn’t. Any elements you like :)

The tag defines what is an element, for example a route is something “on top” 
of a highway (or railway, ferry etc), it is not representing the physical ways 
but their structure in a bigger context. A route relation with just one member 
may seem odd, but as you add more detail to the physical ways you will have to 
split them generally, and the route will be already there (as long as you just 
split the ways, it will remain ok).

Cheers Martin 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 12:58, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> > On 14. May 2020, at 13:16, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > It makes it more difficult to the extent that a decision has to be made
> as to
> > whether we treat the NHS in the UK as a whole as admin level 1 or NHS
> Wales
> > as admin level 1.  Or some other hierarchical arrangement.  Or not bother
> > mapping it.
>
>
> level 1 is improbable because level 2 is the national level.
>

Increment my numbers, then.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 12:46, Colin Smale  wrote:

> On 2020-05-14 13:15, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 11:21, Colin Smale  wrote:
>
> [Sub-divisions of health boards in Wales]
>
>> I am sure someone knows where the boundaries are.
>>
>
> Yes,  But that doesn't mean they're making the information public.  I had a
> brief look around Hywel Dda's site and couldn't find even a statement that
> they covered the three counties of Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion and
> Pembrokeshire.  The only place I found a list of the sub-divisions was
> on Wikipedia, but I couldn't see any pointer to the original source
> ofthose lists.
>
>
> This indicates that the health board boundaries are maintained by the
> Welsh Government (i.e. not by NHS Wales):
> https://gov.wales/written-statement-health-board-boundary-change-bridgend
>

That shows who actually controls the areas each health board covers.  It
doesn't state what areas those boards cover, just a change to the boundaries
of some of them.  However, that prompted me to search for *gov wales*
*boundaries* and that led to an Office of National Statistics page that
is not very usable.

This shows that each Principal Area is covered by one health board
>
> http://esriuktechnicalsupportopendata-techsupportuk.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/680c9b730655473787cb594f328a86fa_0?selectedAttributes%5B%5D=UA19CD=bar=table
>

That is probably the stuff on the ONS page but under an esri URL.  The ONS
stuff
is released under the OGL, but that has references to OS opendata licence
for
boundaries.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 14. May 2020, at 13:16, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> It makes it more difficult to the extent that a decision has to be made as to
> whether we treat the NHS in the UK as a whole as admin level 1 or NHS Wales
> as admin level 1.  Or some other hierarchical arrangement.  Or not bother
> mapping it.


level 1 is improbable because level 2 is the national level.

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-05-14 13:15, Paul Allen wrote:

> On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 11:21, Colin Smale  wrote: 
> 
> [Sub-divisions of health boards in Wales] 
> 
>> I am sure someone knows where the boundaries are.
> 
> Yes,  But that doesn't mean they're making the information public.  I had a 
> brief look around Hywel Dda's site and couldn't find even a statement that 
> they covered the three counties of Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion and 
> Pembrokeshire.  The only place I found a list of the sub-divisions was 
> on Wikipedia, but I couldn't see any pointer to the original source ofthose 
> lists.

This indicates that the health board boundaries are maintained by the
Welsh Government (i.e. not by NHS Wales): 
https://gov.wales/written-statement-health-board-boundary-change-bridgend


This shows that each Principal Area is covered by one health board 
http://esriuktechnicalsupportopendata-techsupportuk.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/680c9b730655473787cb594f328a86fa_0?selectedAttributes%5B%5D=UA19CD=bar=table___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2020-05-14 at 12:15 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 11:21, Colin Smale 
> wrote:
> 
> [Sub-divisions of health boards in Wales]
>  
> > I am sure someone knows where the boundaries are.
> 
> Yes,  But that doesn't mean they're making the information public.  I
> had a
> brief look around Hywel Dda's site and couldn't find even a statement
> that
> they covered the three counties of Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion and
> Pembrokeshire.  The only place I found a list of the sub-divisions
> was
> on Wikipedia, but I couldn't see any pointer to the original source
> of
> those lists.
> 
>  
> >  Why should the fact that health in Wales is a devolved
> > responsibility make it any more difficult?
> 
> It makes it more difficult to the extent that a decision has to be
> made as to
> whether we treat the NHS in the UK as a whole as admin level 1 or NHS
> Wales
> as admin level 1.  Or some other hierarchical arrangement.  Or not
> bother
> mapping it.

And the main hospital for parts of Wales is sometimes in England,
operated by NHS England.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 11:21, Colin Smale  wrote:

[Sub-divisions of health boards in Wales]

> I am sure someone knows where the boundaries are.
>

Yes,  But that doesn't mean they're making the information public.  I had a
brief look around Hywel Dda's site and couldn't find even a statement that
they covered the three counties of Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion and
Pembrokeshire.  The only place I found a list of the sub-divisions was
on Wikipedia, but I couldn't see any pointer to the original source of
those lists.



> Why should the fact that health in Wales is a devolved responsibility make
> it any more difficult?
>

It makes it more difficult to the extent that a decision has to be made as
to
whether we treat the NHS in the UK as a whole as admin level 1 or NHS Wales
as admin level 1.  Or some other hierarchical arrangement.  Or not bother
mapping it.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

[Jo]

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:49 PM Steve Doerr 
wrote:

> On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb  wrote:
>
>> Regarding the original question -- in what circumstances are
>> single-member walking/hiking/biking route relations a good mapping practice
>> -- what would be your answer?
>>
>
> Always
>
>
> Doesn't that violate
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element ?
>
> --
> Steve
>
>
No, because on the way you set all the properties of the way (width,
surface, name possibly) and on the route relation you set all the
properties of the route/itinerary.

 Polyglot
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

[Steve Doerr]

On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote:



On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb > wrote:


Regarding the original question -- in what circumstances are
single-member walking/hiking/biking route relations a good mapping
practice -- what would be your answer?


Always


Doesn't that violate 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element ?


--
Steve


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-05-14 11:49, Paul Allen wrote:

> On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 08:39, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
>> In the UK there are multiple hierarchies of geographic areas, for widely 
>> differing purposes, that frequently (but not always and not necessarily) 
>> share borders. For example Police Regions are based on traditional counties 
>> (which are not "administrative")
> 
> By "traditional," do you mean the ceremonial counties (aka "lieutenancies") 
> and the Welsh preserved counties? 
> 
>> with lots of anomalies.
> 
> Yeah, like Police Scotland.  Or the Police Service of Northern Ireland. 
> Or the various forces in Wales, such as Dyfed Powys.  Dyfed was 
> formed by amalgamating Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire and 
> Cardiganshire, was later split back into its component parts 
> (Cardiganshire was renamed Ceredigion in that split), and Dyfed 
> is now a preserved county.

By anomaly I meant where the boundary deviates from the basic high-level
area boundary.  

> Then we have communities.  Which are the secular replacement for 
> parishes and in most cases parish councils have been replaced 
> by community councils, often with the same name.

Civil Parishes in England and Communities in Wales (in fact all
government admin areas) are legally defined as areas of land. The
associated council may or may not exist, and the council may or may not
be active. Council jurisdiction can span multiple such areas
(joint/grouped parish councils, also happens with Communities in Wales),
and a polygon can actually be common to two or more such areas (LCPs,
Lands Common to Parishes). Many areas in England are unparished, meaning
they are not part of any Civil Parish area. What a mess. Scotland and
Northern Ireland are of course different again... 

> And then there are health boards/NHS trusts.  These are devolved.  For 
> example, Hywel Dda University Health Board (Bwrdd Iechyd Prifysgol) 
> is part of NHS Wales (GIG Cymru).  The Welsh health boards are 
> divided into "network clusters", so Hywel Dda has Amman/Gwendraeth, 
> Llanelli, North Ceredigion, North Pembrokeshire, South Ceredigion, 
> South Pembrokeshire and Taf/Tywi.  Good luck trying to figure out 
> the boundaries of those.

I am sure someone knows where the boundaries are. Why should the fact
that health in Wales is a devolved responsibility make it any more
difficult?___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 08:39, Colin Smale  wrote:


> In the UK there are multiple hierarchies of geographic areas, for widely
> differing purposes, that frequently (but not always and not necessarily)
> share borders. For example Police Regions are based on traditional counties
> (which are not "administrative")
>

By "traditional," do you mean the ceremonial counties (aka "lieutenancies")
and the Welsh preserved counties?


> with lots of anomalies.
>

Yeah, like Police Scotland.  Or the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
Or the various forces in Wales, such as Dyfed Powys.  Dyfed was
formed by amalgamating Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire and
Cardiganshire, was later split back into its component parts
(Cardiganshire was renamed Ceredigion in that split), and Dyfed
is now a preserved county.

Then we have communities.  Which are the secular replacement for
parishes and in most cases parish councils have been replaced
by community councils, often with the same name.

And then there are health boards/NHS trusts.  These are devolved.  For
example, Hywel Dda University Health Board (Bwrdd Iechyd Prifysgol)
is part of NHS Wales (GIG Cymru).  The Welsh health boards are
divided into "network clusters", so Hywel Dda has Amman/Gwendraeth,
Llanelli, North Ceredigion, North Pembrokeshire, South Ceredigion,
South Pembrokeshire and Taf/Tywi.  Good luck trying to figure out
the boundaries of those.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

[Jo]

On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb  wrote:

> On 5/13/2020 10:12 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>
> We've had relations for over a decade now, IIRC.  It's time to stop
> treating this basic primitive as entity-non-grata.  If tools *still* can't
> deal with this, this is on the tools and their developers now.
>
> Sure. Regarding the original question -- in what circumstances are
> single-member walking/hiking/biking route relations a good mapping practice
> -- what would be your answer?
>

Always
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-05-14 04:02, Andrew Harvey wrote:

> Agreed with Phake, any boundary that's used for administrative purposes could 
> be included, that's what I understand from 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative. That 
> doesn't mean that each area needs to have it's own legal entity and 
> administrator, nor need to be able to set laws, rules, codes etc. just that 
> the boundary itself is used for some administrative purposes.

I would suggest a filter that the area needs to be formally defined,
possibly by some level of government. I agree that whether or not there
is any active form of local government is not a prerequisite. But we
need to draw the line somewhere If a group of neighbours got
together and said "our area is called Homesville" would that qualify? If
a company with a huge plant divided the campus into North, South, East
and West with Regional Managers, it is using the areas for
"administrative purposes" but I would not expect this to be reflected in
OSM as admin boundaries. 

As with everything in OSM it should be "independently verifiable" which
implies there should be some publicly accessible single source of truth,
i.e. the definition of the area is written down somewhere that Joe
Bloggs or I could access freely. 

In the UK there are multiple hierarchies of geographic areas, for widely
differing purposes, that frequently (but not always and not necessarily)
share borders. For example Police Regions are based on traditional
counties (which are not "administrative") with lots of anomalies. They
are subdivided into districts. Calling these areas
"boundary=administrative" instead of "boundary=police" would cause
confusion! 

The use of admin_level=* allows a proper hierarchy to be defined, but is
currently only used with boundary=administrative. If this concept is
extended into (for example) boundary=police, you enable a parallel
hierarchy, which reflects real life much better and keeps things clearer
for both mapper and user.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 14. May 2020, at 04:03, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> That doesn't mean that each area needs to have it's own legal entity and 
> administrator, nor need to be able to set laws, rules, codes etc. just that 
> the boundary itself is used for some administrative purposes.


This is also my interpretation, in the context of osm.

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging