Hi, On 03/03/2016 08:02 PM, Steve Friedl wrote: > Ive been updating all the cities in Orange County California to have fully > segmented relationalized boundaries, such that cities sharing a common > border share a single way in each of their relations; this eliminates > overlapping ways. Its been very tedious but it's really getting cleaned > up.
\o/ > First: The individual relations city, county, national forest, etc. all > have full information tags about the entity, but how should the way members > themselves be tagged? It is not necessary but may add clarity for people editing the data. Generally it is recommended to tag boundary=administrative, admin_level=<highgest admin level involved>, and no names (no county:left, county:right stuff etc either). > Within Westminster is a "donut hole" , and the Westminster relation has it > as a role=inner. > > Question: should that same donut hole be tagged role=outer in the Orange > County relation? Yes, that's what I would suggest. It would be nice if our tools allowed you to simply make the Westminster *relation* an "inner" of Orange county and thereby automatically do the donut justice but that's not supported by anything really. > It just doesn't feel right to have a role=outer fully within another > role=outer, but that's the only way I can think of to handle this. Rest assured, when you hear Mathematicians talking about geometry, they will happily accept that an outer ring can be surrounded by an inner ring. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
