2011/9/30 Frederik Ramm <[email protected]>: > I am very much against using place=... for areas; if one wants to describe > areas then one should use a boundary tag.
place was from the beginning defined for nodes as well as for areas. Currently we (mapnik-OSM) are using external data (natural earth) for the purpose these place areas could serve ( shapefile builtup_area ), why shouldn't we try to get our own data for these? Btw.: one forth of all place=city already are mapped as an area according to taginfo. > If the proposed tags are used for nodes, then they don't require the above > well-definedness and no hierarchy either. If neighbourhoods were introduced then there would already be a hierarchy (suburbs are bigger/higher then neighbourhoods). What's the problem with introducing an intermediate level? How would a renderer decide the importance of a certain node in respect to another if there were hundreds of them (like in the Rome example)? If you don't need the hierarchy, simply don't use it (or don't use 3 levels but only 2). If you can't tell the limit of a neighbourhood (which btw. could overlap, this won't be a problem) simply map it as a node. These proposals don't force anyone to map places as areas. Cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
