On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On 03/03/2016 08:02 PM, Steve Friedl wrote: >> I’ve 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. It’s been very tedious but it's really getting cleaned >> up.
Nice. I did the same with county relations a while ago and yes, it is very tedious. While you're doing that are you also putting wikipedia tags and adding nodes to the relations? I did this with counties and talked about it in a blog post a while ago. Some of the same things I talk about in the blog post likely apply to cities as well: http://ksmapper.blogspot.com/2014/02/county-borders-in-openstreetmap.html >> 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). Agree with Frederik here. A completely tagless way is more likely to be deleted or otherwise messed with by people who don't know the details of boundary relations so I typically leave the boundary=administrative and admin_level tags on them. >> 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. Disagree here. As Peter said, when you enter the city you aren't leaving the county (Independent cities in Virginia are a different story) so you don't need to do anything with it. There have been some instances of people using "subarea" relation memberships but I don't really agree with that myself. Especially in the case of cities/counties since cities sometimes spread into multiple counties. See the United States boundary relation for an example of this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/148838 Note that all the state boundary relations are members of the U.S. relation with a role of "subarea" - and to reiterate, I do *not* recommend doing this :) Toby _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
