On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Minh Nguyen <[email protected]> wrote:
> How does this compare to Seattle? Do its neighborhoods have a similar > level of organization? The GNIS place=hamlet POIs in Cincinnati mostly fell > into the latter bucket, but we turned some into place=suburb and a few > turned out to be historical. Seattle has very defined neighborhoods and even sub-neighborhoods. The prior discussions kept us from adding the boundaries. Maybe it is time to reconsider. The Mapzen effort to produce a boundaries overlay is a promising solution to the problem, but I haven't heard anything from Mapzen for a while. Boundaries are often hard to identify, even between cities let alone neighborhoods, yet they are import for many uses. Right now I'm in a city that I can't tell where it begins and the next city to the north ends. There doesn't seem to be a clear demarcation. But if we have access to administrative boundaries, I believe they should be in OSM. (At least until we have a viable alternative.) At its most basic, OSM is a geospatial database. We have countries, states, counties, and cities. Why not neighborhoods. OSM tells where a feature is located. Points can only tell us how close a feature is to a node. Using nodes to represent neighborhoods doesn't allow with any certainty where a feature is located while a polygon can. We are a slightly off topic, but place=hamlet has the same issue. The problem is that not all place=hamlet have defined borders. For example, "Edison Station" is a hamlet that is known by some locals, but there is no defined boundary. At best it has very small radius, yet as a node, it might cast a wider territory. Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
