Surely the boundary way itself is unlikely to have a name, other than a
synthetic a/b boundary? Unless of course the name refers to some
feature like a road or a river which in a specific case may be part of
the boundary. As administrative bodies (and their boundaries) are
usually hierarchical
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Surely the boundary way itself is unlikely to have a name, other than a
synthetic a/b boundary?
To clarify, my remark was just about the tag name in the two
relations which are indeed identical excepted the admin_level
OK, sorry if I misunderstood.
On 2013-11-06 11:25, Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Surely the boundary way itself is unlikely to have a name, other than a
synthetic a/b boundary?
To clarify, my remark was just about the tag
2013/11/6 Pieren pier...@gmail.com
Now I see that the county free big city. is incorrect. If the admin
level exists but is just matching another level boundary, we duplicate
the relation in my country since years. See for instance
- Paris, the municipality (city), level 8 :
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
but ARE there such things as Paris level 8 AND Paris level 6 (i.e. are there
governments for both levels, or is there only one government?), or is there
just one Paris level 6 which has also the
2013/11/6 Pieren pier...@gmail.com
It's two different adminitrative levels. In this particular case, it's
also two different administrations but does it count since we just
identify admin boundaries ?
good question, one might argue that if there is only one administration,
maybe there
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:32:08PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2013/11/6 Pieren pier...@gmail.com
It's two different adminitrative levels. In this particular case, it's
also two different administrations but does it count since we just
identify admin boundaries ?
good question,
Administrative boundaries are defined by a unique administrative instance ?
Let's take the problem the other way around:
Is this boundary x an admin level 6? If yes, create a level 6 relation.
Is this boundary x an admin level 8? If yes, create a level 8 relation.
Do you want to know if a
2013/11/6 Yves yve...@gmail.com
Let's take the problem the other way around:
Is this boundary x an admin level 6? If yes, create a level 6 relation.
Is this boundary x an admin level 8? If yes, create a level 8 relation.
Do you want to know if a relation is similar to another one ? Define
Hi,
in Germany we have the concept of countys and citys within those
countys. E.g. admin_level=8 within admin_level=6.
Now as an exception every rule follows bigger citys are their own
countys, or dont belong to a county. (Kreisfreie Städte)
Administrative wise these citys take all
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote:
A fix would be an admin_level=6;8 on the boundary or duplicating
the relation.
I'm surprised you still have such questions in Germany. Your
description is not clear since you don't explain what is on the way
and what is on the
In the UK we do the opposite. In Unitary Authorities, which combine
the role of the county with the district (sounds like the same as
the Kreisfreie Staedte) we tag the UA as admin_level=6, i.e. at the same
level as counties, and not admin_level=8 which is the level for the
districts.
We also
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 06:18:44PM +0100, Colin Smale wrote:
In the UK we do the opposite. In Unitary Authorities, which combine
the role of the county with the district (sounds like the same as
the Kreisfreie Staedte) we tag the UA as admin_level=6, i.e. at the same
level as counties,
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 04:55:42PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote:
A fix would be an admin_level=6;8 on the boundary or duplicating
the relation.
I'm surprised you still have such questions in Germany. Your
description is not clear
2013/11/5 Pieren pier...@gmail.com
I'm surprised you still have such questions in Germany. Your
description is not clear since you don't explain what is on the way
and what is on the relation.
it shouldn't matter. Mostly you don't need a relation at all (if not to
reduce redundancy by
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On 05.11.2013 16:22, Florian Lohoff wrote:
A fix would be an admin_level=6;8 on the boundary or duplicating
the relation.
Duplicating the relation seems easiest and is what I'd probably do,
but of course it is not 100% correct as there aren't
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Duplicating the relation seems easiest and is what I'd probably do,
but of course it is not 100% correct as there aren't two different
admin boundaries (or, in the case of Hamburg, and Berlin, three - here
admin_levels
17 matches
Mail list logo
