Lennard wrote: > Oh, and please consider the use of type=multipolygon relations > for these > boundaries, and not the superfluous type=boundary variant.
I think there are only two countries in the world (according to the wiki) who strangely think it better to use multipolygon relations rather than boundary ones. For those of us who edit (and correct) boundary relations in Potlatch the highlighting of boundary relation members in purple rather than blue for multipolygons makes things so much easier (especially at the moment in GA where I'm finding landuse multipolygon imports by county butting up against the boundary way). So yes, I've considered it, and consider boundary worthy of being a special case of multipolygon. Ed _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
