On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> 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 into one). > > So if we wanted > to make it a rule that boundaries are duplicated, we'll certainly have > some explaining to do. > Maybe we can apply the idea of a geometric relation (I think first proposed by Frederik, I believe) and use that as a member for an administrative relation. The geometric relation is tagged like a multipolygon and only represents the boundary as an abstract line. Then we have several admin boundary relations of different admin_level=* tags that has this geometric relation as a member. Cons: 1. We would have 1 more relation to deal with 2. The relation-in-a-relation concept is complicated Pros: 1. It would be slightly easier to determine that two admin_level boundaries are coincident without doing geometric calculations or member comparisons. Now that I've written the above, I think the complexity is too big for the problem it solves. So I'm in favor of duplicated relations.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
