2013/11/6 Yves
> 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
> 'similar', dow
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 relation
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:32:08PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2013/11/6 Pieren
>
> > 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 mig
2013/11/6 Pieren
> 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 aren't two admini
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
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 competence/duties/power over what
>
2013/11/6 Pieren
> 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 :
> http://www.openstreetmap.org
OK, sorry if I misunderstood.
On 2013-11-06 11:25, Pieren wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Colin Smale 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
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Colin Smale 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 value.
Pieren
__
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
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 :
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/7444
- Paris
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Frederik Ramm 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 4,6,8 are folded
-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'
2013/11/5 Pieren
> 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 overlapping ways),
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 04:55:42PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Florian Lohoff 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 sin
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 co
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".
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Florian Lohoff 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 relation. B
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 administrati
18 matches
Mail list logo
