Lukasz Stelmach wrote: > Please, are we talking about administrative boundaries? OK about > boundaries and is_in. That is the problem. I think, and I do it, that, > is in should reflect administrative structure. Not at all levels but > most. E.g. > > place=country,name=Polska,name:en=Poland,is_in=Europe > > but > > place=town,name=Mszczonów,is_in=Mszczonów,żyrardowski,mazowieckie,Polska
The discussion probably needs to be split. the is_in tab SHOULD be dropped altogether since the other alternative is insisting that every entry has an is_in tag? PROVIDING an is_in result from areas contained on the map is the correct way of doing things in the future, but adding hundreds of thousands of is_in=Mszczonów,żyrardowski,mazowieckie,Polska type tags is just going to make the raw data unmanageable. ( As some of you will know I HATE tags anyway - from a data storage point of view they are simply wrong, and if there was a unique 'place' table with proper hierarchical links, then the 'żyrardowski,mazowieckie,Polska' would just be read from the 'Mszczonów' entry - and we could add alternate language versions as well ! ) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk MEDW - http://home.lsces.co.uk/ModelEngineersDigitalWorkshop/ Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
