On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
> Tom, I think we need to have consensus about what we mean by admin centre.
>
+1
In my area, a local mapper also had the idea of adding the town hall
building into the boundary relation. I did not revert this even
Isn't the admin_centre just an imaginary point? They tend to be in a
logical place, but that might as well be the church or the geographical
center (at least in current mapping in Belgium).
Also, often it isn't actually "administrative", because we mapped the
"Deelgemeenten" (part-community?)
It looks like you're attempting to create a problem to find a solution.
admin_centre added to a town/villages place node is sufficient as local
authorities often use multiple buildings.
DaveF.
On 26/01/2017 11:46, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
There is no logical reason why this townhall should not
Colin, there is a separate discussion on the wiki page about multiple
admin centres, as you said below. It is a valid point, but IMHO a
separate issue from technically tagging the admin_centre role on a way.
On 26.01.2017 13:02, Colin Smale wrote:
Tom, I think we need to have consensus about
Tom, I think we need to have consensus about what we mean by admin
centre. The traditional "town hall" is frequently no longer the central
office location where the administrative and/or customer-facing staff
are located, and indeedn, these functions may be distributed over
multiple locations. How
Boundary relations [1] can have members that are the boundary itself,
thus the geometrical part of this boundary, as well as further details,
in particular an admin_centre and a label, which are both extremely well
accepted, and (disputed) a subarea.
The valid geometrical members are 'outer'