In my opinion, it should be unnecessary to add the smaller area relations as subarea role members of the larger ones (as I see has recently been added to the boundary relation wiki page) – this is a geographic database and if correctly tagged then the admin_level and the physical location within an admin area the next class up should be sufficient. In the UK I think the subarea role has only been used on a few relations in the Kent area IIRC (I forget now, but when I was writing a boundary validation program I discovered that recursing relation members of relations needed to exclude the subarea role to identify which boundary actually had the issue).
If you do decide to add electoral boundaries (there are currently relatively few entered in GB – ~88 in last night’s Geofabrik extract, 2 of which need fixing[1]), then after some discussion on IRC we came up with a political_division tag as mentioned on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dpolitical and again, the location should mean subarea roles aren’t required. Just my opinion though. Perhaps others can think of a reason subarea members might be useful? Ed [1] http://www.loach.me.uk/osm/boundaries/political.aspx From: Bob Hawkins [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 14 November 2011 16:35 To: [email protected] Subject: [Talk-GB] Administrative boundaries and parent/child relations I am interested to learn other contributors' thoughts on the benefits, or otherwise, of adding child relations to parents for hierarchical United Kingdom administrative areas as in county/local authority district/civil parish or unitary authority/civil parish, for example. With the recent benefit of OS OpenData Boundary-Line, should it be widely practised? Is it worthwhile to add electoral boundaries and apply to them, also?
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
