Am Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:23:47 +0200 (CEST) schrieb Beni Buess beni@benel.net:
Hi
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 01:03:31AM +0200, Thomas Ineichen wrote:
Hi all,
first of all: the import should be ready this weekend. I used the simplifier-plugin in JOSM which reduced the nodes from over one million down to about 360'000.. Handling is a lot easier now.
Sarah wrote:
while we are redoing all our boundaries in Switzerland, could we maybe discuss the format of the boundary relations once more?
You mean if type=boundary or type=multipolygon? :->
boundary=*, the type tag is sooo out of fashion. ;)
In particular, I'd like to get rid of the subparts in those relations.
Lucky you, the new relations will be without hierarchy anyway, so that's a good moment to separate them. Because - as Stéphane says
- it's just practical to have the hierarchy included in relations
and not just the 'raw' data..
As I said, 'practical' depends on your point of view. If you try to build polygons from the relations, those are very impractical. And I know I'm fighting windmills here but may I point out once more that relations are NOT bookmarks. If you need all boundaries in Switzerland, you can use the XAPI.
Is there any accepted tagging scheme?
Looking at the boundary page in the Wiki again, it seems that somebody actually did make the subarea an official role. I checked the database now and only the Czech Republic seems to actually use this (and some smaller counties in Spain and Japan). Altogether about 6000 out of 160.000 boundary relations. On the other hand, we are also the only ones to have a relation "type=nation". So, no, there is no accpeted tagging schema, I'd say.
As I have now done the admin_level 5/6 for some cantons (and missed to use the existing relations for these -shame on me-) i have dived into this boundary relation stuff for the first time. I was a bit confused by the use of the place key in the boundary relation of Aargau for example, as it is not mentioned at [1]. There are relations for admin_level 6 which have some subparts relation, but not all the possible subparts, a bit inconsistent :-) I'd expected to see just ways (and probably the admin_centre) as childs of boundary relations with admin_level>6 but it seems to be a inconsistent bookmark-tree.
Here I am, not sure if I should revert my newly created boundary relations (admin_level 5/6) with just ways as members and reuse the existing ones, removing all the old ways and adding the new ones. I'm not sure as well about what to do with the admin_level=4 relation.
Any suggestions?
I'm with you Sarah, we should get rid of this bookmarking stuff. seems to be too much work to have it in a consistent state to me. And yes, we can use the XAPI to get all the boundaries (unfortunately some ways near the border are missing, but it is easy to load them from the API manually for now).
Good night. Beni