On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Steve Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: >> +1. While I'd rather see these objects go away altogether, I think a >> tag of "name=Melbourne;Geelong;South-Central NSW Area;Central Victoria >> Area" on a closed way implies that this closed way represents an area >> called "Melbourne;Geelong;South-Central NSW Area;Central Victoria >> Area". >> >> I'm not sure boundary=* is appropriate either, as this is not a >> political or governmental or pseudo-governmental division, though >> maybe I'm just not aware of how broadly that tag is used. > > Cool. Well, since these areas aren't AFAIK used for anything except > these kinds of maps: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nearmap , > there's no particular need for them to have tags like name=* or > boundary=*. I've changed this one.
Sounds good. I don't think storing these in OSM, with the non-overlapping tags, is harmful. While I'd love to see them in a separate database or at least a separate layer, the fact of the matter is that separate database and/or separate layer hasn't yet really been implemented. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
