[Tagging] Admin_level=2 for non-independent countries
While editing capital=yes I came across capitals of non-independent countries which have their national border tagged with admin_level=2 (I just did a browser site search in https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/boundaries/). Wikipedia was used to assemble the list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_capitals_in_alphabetical_order) The countries fall into the categories: - Realm of New Zealand (only Tokelau) - British Overseas Territories with Bermudas, Gibraltar, Turks and Caicos Islands and others - Crown Dependencies with Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey (quite independent) - Danish Realm with Greenland and Faroe Islands The following are grouped below their respective states: - French overseas departments and territories - United States Territories - Australian External Territories - Kingdom of the Netherlands (Dutch Caribbean) Question: Are there any improvements possible, e.g. creating some of the constructs above and order the countries below? Question: Should capital=yes mirror admin_level=2 or should capital=yes be used for independent countries and capital=2 for the other? Regards Joachim ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Admin_level=2 for non-independent countries
Instead of labelling the city itself with capital=yes, consider adding the city to the admin boundary with a role of "capital". Like that a city can easily be capital of multiple administrative units (it might be a national capital and a provincial capital at the same time) and it stays distinct from the administrative centre. A city cannot simply be a "capital" based on its own characteristics like population or area. Being a capital is a role of a place in the context of a territory, so putting this on the relation for the territory seems the most logical place to me. As the capital and administrative centre are mostly coincident, I would suggest that adding the "capital" role would only be required for the exceptional cases. If no capital is specified explicitly, I would assume that the admin_centre also has that role. //colin On 2016-10-08 13:25, Joachim wrote: > While editing capital=yes I came across capitals of non-independent > countries which have their national border tagged with admin_level=2 > (I just did a browser site search in > https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/boundaries/). > > Wikipedia was used to assemble the list > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_capitals_in_alphabetical_order) > > The countries fall into the categories: > - Realm of New Zealand (only Tokelau) > - British Overseas Territories with Bermudas, Gibraltar, Turks and > Caicos Islands and others > - Crown Dependencies with Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey (quite independent) > - Danish Realm with Greenland and Faroe Islands > > The following are grouped below their respective states: > - French overseas departments and territories > - United States Territories > - Australian External Territories > - Kingdom of the Netherlands (Dutch Caribbean) > > Question: Are there any improvements possible, e.g. creating some of > the constructs above and order the countries below? > > Question: Should capital=yes mirror admin_level=2 or should > capital=yes be used for independent countries and capital=2 for the > other? > > Regards Joachim > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Admin_level=2 for non-independent countries
So regarding my question you say the implicit admin_level of a capital should mirror the boundaries. A difference between "independent" and non-independent should be developed there if needed. 2016-10-08 14:32 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale : > Instead of labelling the city itself with capital=yes, consider adding the > city to the admin boundary with a role of "capital". Like that a city can > easily be capital of multiple administrative units (it might be a national > capital and a provincial capital at the same time) and it stays distinct > from the administrative centre. > > A city cannot simply be a "capital" based on its own characteristics like > population or area. Being a capital is a role of a place in the context of a > territory, so putting this on the relation for the territory seems the most > logical place to me. > > As the capital and administrative centre are mostly coincident, I would > suggest that adding the "capital" role would only be required for the > exceptional cases. If no capital is specified explicitly, I would assume > that the admin_centre also has that role. > > //colin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Admin_level=2 for non-independent countries
Well, I think there are two different points in here, which need to be treated separately. Firstly how to represent the relationship between dependent states and their "parents", and secondly how to link the capital to the territory it is the capital of. In both cases I think the boundary relations are the place to put this information. For example Gibraltar's admin_level=2 relation can have a tag "dependent_on=GBR" (or something similar), and possibly "designation=dependent_territory". Alternatively, the UK relation could have Gibraltar as a member with a role of "dependent_territory", although this would meet the same controversy as the "subarea" roles which denote a hierarchical relationship of a local authority with its higher level LA (recursive relationships). London could be included in both the England relation and the UK relation with the "capital" role, although that would be redundant as it is coincident with the admin_centre anyway. //colin On 2016-10-08 15:03, Joachim wrote: > So regarding my question you say the implicit admin_level of a capital > should mirror the boundaries. A difference between "independent" and > non-independent should be developed there if needed. > > 2016-10-08 14:32 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale : > >> Instead of labelling the city itself with capital=yes, consider adding the >> city to the admin boundary with a role of "capital". Like that a city can >> easily be capital of multiple administrative units (it might be a national >> capital and a provincial capital at the same time) and it stays distinct >> from the administrative centre. >> >> A city cannot simply be a "capital" based on its own characteristics like >> population or area. Being a capital is a role of a place in the context of a >> territory, so putting this on the relation for the territory seems the most >> logical place to me. >> >> As the capital and administrative centre are mostly coincident, I would >> suggest that adding the "capital" role would only be required for the >> exceptional cases. If no capital is specified explicitly, I would assume >> that the admin_centre also has that role. >> >> //colin > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
