DaveF made a really good point : boundary:administration=maritime (or something
similar)?
At least I expect those ways to deserve a particular tag as they are almost
certainly special in many respects.
Sincerely, the original idea to mass tag ways part of any boundary level for
ease of rendering relation is... original ?
Yves
Le 10 mars 2018 18:04:35 GMT+01:00, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> a
écrit :
>If Matthijs wishes to distinguish between boundaries at sea (a good
>idea, I believe) then a *unique* tag should be added to those ways.
>Duplicating data is not the way to indicate differences.
>
>How about boundary:administration=maritime (or something similar)?
>
>I've never understood why the highest admin_level value is required to
>be placed on the way at all, when it's clearly calculable from the
>relations. Data shouldn't be duplicated purely for the convenience of
>renderers (or is it just one renderer?). I would support removing them.
>
>Having read the links provided by Christoph, I find it very
>disappointing there are some who still believe the time spent by
>mappers
>adding data is somehow subservient to the time of those coding. It's
>another case of the tail waging the dog.
>
>DaveF.
>
>
>On 10/03/2018 08:14, Colin Smale wrote:
>>
>> Matthijs,
>>
>> This goes against the principle of tagging the relation, not the
>> members. An admin area is syntactically analogous to a multipolygon
>> and it would be a shame to introduce yet another polygon tagging
>paradigm.
>>
>> What are you thinking for other types of
>> boundaries? boundary=political, boundary=national_park come to mind.
>> Will they be treated differently to boundary=administrative?
>>
>> What do you intend exactly when you say "maritime boundaries"? That
>> part of a (national) boundary which crosses water? Or some other
>> definition?
>>
>> Colin
>>
>> On 2018-03-10 01:51, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> OpenStreetMap Carto, the default stylesheet on openstreetmap.org, is
>>> considering to change the mechanism for rendering admin boundaries.
>>> The proposed rendering of admin borders will be based on admin
>>> boundary ways rather than polygons. This has a number of advantages
>-
>>> for example, it will make it possible to style maritime boundaries
>>> differently.
>>>
>>> The admin boundary ways are already in the database. However, in
>some
>>> cases they are missing an admin_level tag. When the proposed style
>>> change will be deployed, boundary=administrative ways without
>>> admin_level tag will no longer be rendered. I would therefore
>suggest
>>> to make sure admin_level tags are present on all
>>> boundary=administrative ways.
>>>
>>> A map showing admin boundary ways without admin_level tag (displayed
>>> in gray) can be found here:
>>> http://product.itoworld.com/map/2?lon=20.00736&lat=51.92203&zoom=6
>>> As can be seen, most countries already do have admin_level on ways.
>>> However, in for example Poland, Iran and Australia, this data seems
>to
>>> be missing.
>>>
>>> -- Matthijs
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Yves
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
