On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 19:59, Phake Nick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 在 2020年7月31日週五 00:24，Alan Mackie <[email protected]> 寫道： > >> >> >> On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 16:38, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Am Do., 30. Juli 2020 um 17:13 Uhr schrieb Alan Mackie < >>> [email protected]>: >>> >>>> This is why I suggested that the more practical solution would probably >>>> be to re-tag all existing admin_level=2 with admin_level=1 except for the >>>> EU ones as there are far fewer elements to be updated. Arbitrarily deciding >>>> that the EU gets its own admin_level not used by other top level entities >>>> breaks consistency with the rest of the world for the sake of local pride. >>>> >>> >>> >>> which other top level entities are you getting at? Why should we not tag >>> these with the same tag? >>> >> >> Other independent nations, this is why I suggested the promotion of all >> other admin_level=2 if we went this rote >> > > admin_level=1 is by definition higher than national level. >
According to the wiki, but current practice doesn't really use it for much beyond historic sites according to previous replies to this thread. At a practical level it mostly seems reserved for future use. I would say a historical example could be German Confederation, before the > unification of Germany > Another historical example could be the Communist Bloc, which is larger > than the Soviet Union. > It might also be useful to map the limit of power of other countries that > formally controls a number of tributary, vassal or proxy states beyond its > own border. > For the 'territories formerly known as colonies' that formally remain at least partly attached to their former ruling states a variety of levels are currently in use. The self governing ones seem to be tagged as admin_level=2, others as 3 or 4 depending on how they see themselves. At least in my non-scientific look at the ones that happened to pop into my head. These largely seem to have found their own solutions within OSM's existing tagging structure. Attempting to tag proxy states seems like taking political stances that OSM has historically tried to stay as far away from as possible. Many if not most of the entities mentioned in this discussion as being candidates for "admin level above country" do have geographic reach encompassing multiple countries, but are also limited in scope, often severely. To tag such a limited body as fully encompassing a higher admin level seems fundamentally flawed as a concept. If their powers were expanded to have unlimited scope within that geographic area you would effectively have a single larger country. Having an entity grow in scope from "admin levels that includes (largely) independent countries" down to admin level of a country seems counter to the general structure. _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
