On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 6:30 AM, "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" <p...@pada.cz> wrote:
> Oh, here we go again... You are wrong. It's nothing like addr:country, > it's not duplicating any information, and the polygon approach is not > applicable. > > I would really appreciate, if people would read on the local terms used > in this import before adding their "wisdom" that completely ignores > local conditions (aka "truth on the ground"). > I did my best explaining at least the basics (in English) in my > previously referenced email to imports list. If someone is too lazy to > read that, then his/her claims and suggestions regarding this specific > import will most probably be worthless (as is the above example). The only explanation I've seen is that "It's too hard to write software to use admin boundaries". That is not a good reason in my opinion. Are there other reasons? You see a lot of people who are generally agreeing that the import as proposed is not good. Imports should in line with the community at large, and the community has concerns which are being shunted into strange discussion about addr:place vs addr:borough, addr:district, etc. An administrative boundary would solve this problem, and allow the import to be agreed on. Is it more work for a parser? Yes. If you don't want to do an import, you don't have to. There are projects like https://github.com/openaddresses/openaddresses which appear happy to take addresses outside of OSM, but I think that adding them to OSM has lots of benefits. - Serge _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
