Hi Lester, can you provide a link to the ONS data you are referring to?
On 2015-09-14 16:39, Lester Caine wrote: > On 14/09/15 15:18, Richard Symonds wrote: > >> Perhaps it would be better to, instead of having a hierarchy based on >> definitions, instead having a hierarchy based on pure population size. >> If this gives odd results, then perhaps you could have a "booster value" >> if the town is used as a post town or a seat of local government (for >> example). > > Not going to happen. > > Wish list! > > On OSM some places have all their is_in: tags for parish, ward, county. > Some rely on having enclosing boundaries to provide that information, > and some have nothing where many of the boundaries are still missing. > > For the UK we have the whole hierarchy from the ONS data so there is no > need to create it, we simply need an agreed method to use it. We could > create all the is_in: tags from the data so we can search and find all > of x in y, or we could pass that off to a third party such as wikidata > where we just add a link to the whole gamut of what can be added virtual > data wise. > > Currently all the wikipedia links are being added but I think that to > use wikidata efficiently one has to use the designated ID rather than > the name? Since Facebook insist on using the names as defined by > wikipedia this is where my problem originally arose since they only add > county when wikipedia do so often you have no idea which is the right > place to use. What is used as a link has other consequences! > > It does still not get around needing the boundaries IN OSM so one can > click anywhere in an area and identify which of multiple zones it is > actually in. Adding this data to the places does not fill that hole :(
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
