On Fri, Jan 01, 2021 at 08:04:59PM +0100, Simon Poole wrote:
This is a slightly controversial topic: with some rare exceptions municipalities that are merged in to an existing one simply go away legally. Some contributors have retained these with admin_level=9 in the past, but that, as said, typically doesn't reflect reality. What should really be checked if there is a, independent from the original municipality, place object so that it still can be found.
Retaining the area as a place area (possibly in addition to an already existing place node) would be certainly useful from a geocoding perspective. They retain a bit more information about the exact extent of the formerly independet villages. I presume that that area is usually somehow also locally known and accepted as 'belonging to that village'.
Sarah
Simon
Am 01.01.2021 um 15:32 schrieb Peter Berger:
Hi Simon
When a municipality is extend we have only the historic boundarys from the disappearing municipality but not from the extended one. And will you suggest to remain the historic ones at all?
Peter
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 01.01.2021 um 12:43 schrieb Simon Poole simon@poole.ch:
Jonas seems to be AWOL after preparing everything, so in his place:
As every year there are a number of municipality mergers and other changes that we need to do.
The list is here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Switzerland/2021_Municipality_Mergers
There are 20 actions required per 1.1.2021 (there are some listed for later in the year), so quite a bit more than the last couple of years.
If you want to work on one, please note it in the list before you start working so there is no concurrent and unnecessary editing.
Simon
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch