>would instead be distinguished by additional tags e.g. `boundary=administrative + administrative=police`
New `boundary=*` relations (there are a lot of values https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/boundary#values) could be proposed for these purposes if warranted. Don't adopt `boundary=administrative` for these other uses. Martin Machyna wrote > Just to add to this. I agree that there needs to be a cut off. I would > suggest that as long as the area has clearly defined boundaries (in > accessible official documents) and it was defined or is actively used by > country's administrative officials or agencies then that would constitute > for accepting it. > > Since these areas often don't fall into exact hierarchy they would not > have > `admin_level=*` tag, but would instead be distinguished by additional tags > e.g. `boundary=administrative + administrative=police`. > The advantage of this would be that all the areas used for administration > would be in one place instead of arbitrary split into many individual > tags. > And would also preserve consistency, as some countries are already using > statistical and cadastral regions under administrative tagging. > > "_Administrative boundaries are intended for the general public's everyday >> use, not for specialists._" > > I don't think that OSM is only for general public and not for specialists. > In fact, it is already used by specialist cartography companies and > startups. And OSM could even be used by state administrations in the > future > as well. (Or whoever wants to work with government data visualization) > > > > On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 08:39, Colin Smale > <colin.smale at xs4all.nl >> > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>> wrote: >> I would suggest a filter that the area needs to be formally defined, >> possibly by some level of government. I agree that whether or not there >> is any active form of local government is not a prerequisite. But we >> need to draw the line somewhere.... If a group of neighbours got >> together and said "our area is called Homesville" would that qualify? If >> a company with a huge plant divided the campus into North, South, East >> and West with Regional Managers, it is using the areas for >> "administrative purposes" but I would not expect this to be reflected in >> OSM as admin boundaries. As with everything in OSM it should be >> "independently verifiable" which >> implies there should be some publicly accessible single source of truth, >> i.e. the definition of the area is written down somewhere that Joe >> Bloggs or I could access freely. In the UK there are multiple hierarchies >> of geographic areas, for widely >> differing purposes, that frequently (but not always and not necessarily) >> share borders. For example Police Regions are based on traditional >> counties (which are not "administrative") with lots of anomalies. They >> are subdivided into districts. Calling these areas >> "boundary=administrative" instead of "boundary=police" would cause >> confusion! The use of admin_level=* allows a proper hierarchy to be >> defined, but is >> currently only used with boundary=administrative. If this concept is >> extended into (for example) boundary=police, you enable a parallel >> hierarchy, which reflects real life much better and keeps things clearer >> for both mapper and user. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@ > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
