Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: unnecessary admin_level tags

On 2018-03-11 00:37, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 12:41 AM, André Pirard > > wrote: > > Hi all, > > Please all, take a very attentive look at this. > Please note the subject change: unnecessary. >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: unnecessary admin_level tags

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 12:41 AM, André Pirard wrote: > Hi all, > > Please all, take a very attentive look at this. > Please note the subject change: unnecessary. > Please note the disambiguation boundary vs borderline. > > The problem with admin_level tags is that

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: unnecessary admin_level tags

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > Please all, take a very attentive look at this. > Please note the subject change: unnecessary. > Please note the disambiguation boundary vs borderline. > > The problem with admin_level tags is that numbers need to

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: unnecessary admin_level tags

On 2018-03-10 17:41, André Pirard wrote: > Hi all, > > Please all, take a very attentive look at this. > Please note the subject change: unnecessary. > Please note the disambiguation boundary vs borderline. > > The problem with admin_level tags is that numbers need to exist to BE ABLE to >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: unnecessary admin_level tags

On 2018-03-10 17:41, André Pirard wrote: > * "ceremonial" Berkshire [1] that is not administrative, has no level and yet > contains administrative "councils" > Berkshire itself, however, is not a subarea of a higher level but it could > > * Relation Bracknell Forest (113682) [2] as subarea > *

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: unnecessary admin_level tags

Hi all, Please all, take a very attentive look at this. Please note the subject change: unnecessary. Please note the disambiguation boundary vs borderline. The problem with admin_level tags is that numbers need to exist to *be **able* to nest boundaries and hence that only administrative