2015-10-14 9:49 GMT+02:00 Badita Florin <[email protected]>: > This way is a highway and at the same time is part of the relation of a > boundary. This seems invalid since it merges two types of features on the > same way instead of keeping a logical separation between two different > things. Is this a valid way? What if the highway is modified ? since the > highway is not a legal boundary and just happens to overlap the real > boundary, so if the highway is changed for any reason, it will modify the > boundary along with it.
This really depends on the definition of the boundary. If the highway IS legally the boundary, the boundary might also change when the highway changes (more likely for natural features maybe, like rivers, peaks or coastlines). If instead the legal boundary is defined separately (e.g. by coordinates or poles on the ground) and "just happens" to coincide with the highway position then we should model 2 distinct features in OSM (and a modification of the highway should not modify the boundary as well). You cannot assume that the highway isn't the legal boundary unless you find the actual legal definition for it and can verify the situation. Both alternatives exist in the real world. Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
