On 29 April 2014 12:56, Jason Ward <[email protected]> wrote: > I have intentions of following the British structure for QLD boundaries (no > permission to use this dataset yet). Boundary is the chosen type there: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1464290 > > multipolygon, though, is "winning" that race it seems: > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/type
I don't think that indicates multipolygon type is more popular than a boundary type for a relation defining a boundary. Multipolygons have extensive usage independent of boundaries. I suspect the only reason that boundary is even in the race, is due to some large imports. The issue stems from overloading of the meaning of 'type', in the relation definition. Multipolygon uses 'type' as defining the geometry of a relation. This appears to be the original usage. And a boundary clearly has this geometry. So, if 'type' refers to geometry - as it did originally - then boundary should never have been used as a type, and it should just have been a multipolygon. This usage isn't apparent from the word 'type', and you can see why the person who came along and created boundaries thought they were a of a different type, even though they were of the same geometry. And if type was meant to define the geometry, then it would have been a idea to use a different tag originally. Now we have type being used with both meanings. Ian. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
