On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > > On 10/04/12 03:17, A.Pirard.Papou wrote: > >> 1) While the A name= of the relation is the name of the area, such as >> London or Wales, the possible B name has nothing to do with the area. >> The B name can be that of a river, of a road, or the border piece can be >> immaterial or chosen not to be represent the physical way. >> If the border line is immaterial, the name, if any, can be chosen >> perfectly arbitrarily and serves only to identify the border line at >> best when you look at configuration data or on the map. >> > > In these cases I tend to omit the name tag altogether. After all, the > immaterial line doesn't really have a name; what you are talking about is > more of an "annotation", a "note", a "description" or somesuch. > > Same here. Furthermore, I have been removing names in those cases (well, switching them precisely to notes or other non-rendered keys). > 2) The admin_level itself is redundant in ways. It is in fact contained >> in the boundary relations, and as it possibly has multiple values if the >> border is for several area levels. >> > > The consensus is to use the highest of all applicable admin levels. You > are right in saying that it is redundant (as is the boundary=administrative > tag, btw.) but it does make things easier for those users who simply want > to draw a line on their map - they don't have to evaluate the, possibly > broken, polygons for that. > > +1 Regards, M
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
