I queried Alex's rational:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/alexkemp/diary/39062
As I noted is_in tags are hard-coded so become inaccurate if boundaries
change.
I also asked about Nominatim's search criteria on the Talk forum:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-August/076592.html
Dave F.
On 16/08/2016 16:01, Colin Smale wrote:
In the specific case of the UK, I am not convinced that is_in has no
value at all. This is because of the huge divergence between people's
perceptions and administrative reality. If you ask someone to give
their location/current address, they will most likely refer to the
postal addressing system, which is completely unconnected to
administrative boundaries. They will also tend to add a level of
detail to the address which the postal system does not require, but
tolerates. The admin boundaries represent the legal status, but it
will be more relevant to most people's minds if Nominatim et al.
recognise an alternative place hierarchy. I think place=*
polygons/nodes may already be used, but the results sometimes seem to
be an awful jumble of admin boundaries and place-based info. The fact
that large swathes of the countryside are unparished (i.e. no
admin_level=10 polygon with a name) makes the quality/accuracy of the
results variable according to the location. Alex Kemp is experimenting
with introducing artificial admin_level=10 polygons for these
unparished areas with names based on historical data to help Nominatim
which IMHO is not the way to do it. Parishes are useless for
navigation/addressing anyway.
Bottom line is that locations have multiple ways of being defined, and
this is not currently embraced by OSM which wants a nice simple
address+polygon hierarchy. For many countries that works, but not for
the UK. It is possible that the is_in data can give an alternative
perspective. BUT it needs to be kept distinct from the admin
boundaries, which are a matter of law, and it needs to give complete
coverage of the country, which at present is probably not the case.
Colin
On 2016-08-16 14:55, Dave F wrote:
+1
Also his use of is_in:* is also redundant when the boundary tag is used,
Dave F.
On 16/08/2016 13:25, Andy Allan wrote:
On 16 August 2016 at 13:11, Will Phillips <wp4...@gmail.com
<mailto:wp4...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Regarding the 'ref:hectares' tag, it does seem wrong to me. It's not
consistent with other uses of the ref tag in OSM. Also, I agree that tagging
area values seems redundant, but perhaps doesn't do any harm in this case. I
do think at least, they should be retagged, perhaps to area:ha or
area:hectares?
No, they should be removed.
While it seems like tags like this do little harm, they encourage
future importers to follow the same path, and our database ends up
full of cruft. It's also off-putting to mappers, who might be scared
off from fixing the geometry of features since they don't know how to
recalculate the area.
There's no good reason to keep them.
Thanks,
Andy
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
