2009/6/13 Peter Miller <peter.mil...@itoworld.com>: > > On 13 Jun 2009, at 09:30, Peter Childs wrote: > > 2009/6/11 Ed Loach <e...@loach.me.uk>: > > And here is the current OSM guidance:- > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:admin_level#admin_level > > In order to tie in with NUTS and with guidance for other > > countries > > within OSM we might want to do the following for England > > (Scotland > > and Wales would be similar but would skip some levels):- > > UK (admin_level=2) > > England/Wales/Scotland (admin_level=4) > > English regions (North East, East of England etc) (also > > admin_level=4 > > as per NUTS) > > Ceremonial counties - where they exist (admin_level= 5) > > County Councils/Unitary Authorities (admin-level=6) > > Districts (admin-level=8) districts / London boroughs / > > metropolitan > > boroughs. > > > Whats the simplest way of adding a boundary? I notice that Medway does > not have one, I know ruthley where it should be, but have no idea of > how to go about adding the relevant relation/way. I'm fine adding > Roads and smaller stuff but the boundary stuff just throws me. > > It is better to use a relation for the boundary rather than way tags which > used to be the only way to do it. Add the appropriate existing ways > (rivers/roads etc) to a new relation. You may need to split roads/rivers > where the boundary diverges. For some sections of the boundary you will need > to add new ways (where it goes across fields). I just add a > 'note=administrative boundary' tag to those ways. > The only source of data we can legally use for the boundary to by knowledge > is the NPE maps base which shows boundaries as a dotted line if you are > lucky and if they have not moved in the past 50 years. I also check > wikipedia as a cross check > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EnglandMedway.png) and then the official > council website to see if there is general agreement on the shape and > extent. > It isn't perfect - to be perfect our democratic government will need to > persuade the OS to give its citizens the boundaries by which it is governed. > Until now lets do the best we can and when people say they are wrong we will > ask them to provide the information to correct it! > Btw, OSM and the UK Boundaries project got a mention on the Guardians data > blog yesterday. > http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jun/11/opensourc > > > > Regards, > > Peter > > > > Peter.
I think there is value in also tagging the way with at least boundary=administrative, especially ways that would otherwise only have the relation. The relation model does not completely surpass the old tagging scheme. -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb