On 27 Feb 2009, at 01:00, Simon Ward wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:54:56PM +0000, Shaun McDonald wrote: >> It is much easier to work out what else goes together by using a >> relation, rather than the is_in tag. The is_in tag is a bad tag as we >> are dealing with geo data, so we already know what it is in, if all >> the >> boundaries are in the data. Relations are much better for linking >> related data. Imported in the right way, you can get two way >> relationships setup correctly. > > My take: > > The is_in tag has a freeform value. is_in=Manchester could mean one > of > many things: Is this Manchester, UK, or one of the many other > Manchesters[1]? It defines a relationship between the object and the > area, but can be ambiguous. > > Better in the Manchester case is to have a relation linking things in > (that particular) Manchester. The relation unambiguously defines the > object. > > [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_(disambiguation) >
That is a better way of putting it for mappers, though I would add that you should not place everything in a town/city/village/country into a relation. I should really switch my developer head off sometimes. Shaun _______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
