--- On Tue, 28/7/09, andrzej zaborowski <balr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Both for the time spent tagging and space used in database,
> perhaps
> there might be some saving from using polygons but it
> depends on the
> exact scenario. Either way, don't add the tags you
I doubt I can agree that using polygons would use more space if you were in
turn able to reduce a lot of per node or per way information that would be made
less redundant.
> think are of no
> use, they'll be added by people for whom they're
> useful. Or easier to
The only people they seem useful for are those making routing software,
otherwise I doubt the information is used at all.
> In the renderer one idea I had was to use the number of
> commas in the
> is_in= value to decide on the text size of suburb/district
> labels in a
> city (they could be tagged as districts, parishes, etc
> instead - but
> you would quickly run out of tags), that's much more
> complicated with
> boundary polygons only.
That would also require consistent tagging to be useful, which is the crux of
the problem, the tagging doesn't appear to be consistent and in turn is less
useful.
> Well, that stops us because in this case the unofficial
> information is
> taken out of thin air, i.e. wrong. Say someone asks
> the map: am I in
> county A or county B at this point? The answer given
> may have 50%
> chance of being wrong.
What happens now if information is wrong, someone who does know fixes it.
You may not know exact boundaries but people on boundaries know where they
usually run.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
