It's an handy and intuitive way of organizing boundaries in a neat hierarchy visible from the database itself.
Take for example this boundary [1]. If the subarea role was deprecated then it would be a lot harder of finding out which are its father, grandfather, etc. relations, which would make verifying them a more tedious task. [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4172448 2015-11-26 18:51 GMT+00:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]>: > I just noticed that a lot of boundary relations have the lower ranking > parts included as members with the "subarea" role. > This role is documented here: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary > > But I wonder how it got on this definition page. Was this discussed > anywhere? I don't think it's a good idea to add all those lower entities in > nested relations (they are already spatially structured, this is redundant > and makes the relations more complicated for no good reason). > > I propose to remove this property from the definition page and move it to > the talk page. > > Comments? > > Cheers, > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > -- Um Abraço, Marcos Oliveira
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
