While we're on the topic, I think it's a good idea to remain the former municipality boundaries with admin_level=10, rather than delete them. In most merged municipalities I know, there is a requirement for example to have an equal representation of older municipality in commisions (<- I do not know the english term), and it is now possible for people to have a former municipality that merged as a "place of origin" (<- I do not know the english term either). This means the former boundaries still somehow "exist", in the hearts of people if not administratively. Consequently the older municipality relation can also be kept with an "admin_level=10". This is not required, but I'd say it's recommanded, it costs nothing to keep them (simply change admin_level) rather than remove them.
I know the recent mergings have been done properly (thank you Simon), but a certain someone added dozen of tags "place=village" for merged municipalities, which is *wrong*. In some cases they even removed the tags for the actual villages ! I spent a lot of time to fix them and move the tags to the corresponding municipality relations. Should any "place=village" tags re-appear where there is no village to indicate a merged municipality, I'll simply remove them and I won't take the time to transfer the tags to the actual municipality relationship.
Mit freundlische grüsse, Salutations amicales,
hi,
please don't try do hide obsolete Admin Boundaries by giving them a high AL. They are no boundaries any more. And AL=10 is a usual AL in many countries too.
I would suggest to tag obsolete Admin Boundaries with /boundary=historic/ and /end_date=x/ (end_date=20170101 ?) leaving the AL untouched. That is the usual way in many other countries. /start_date=x /is beeing used too, to add "new" Boundaries some times before they get active.
Regards walter, aka wambacher
Am 07.05.2017 um 14:27 schrieb Jonathan Masur:
While we're on the topic, I think it's a good idea to remain the former municipality boundaries with admin_level=10, rather than delete them. In most merged municipalities I know, there is a requirement for example to have an equal representation of older municipality in commisions (<- I do not know the english term), and it is now possible for people to have a former municipality that merged as a "place of origin" (<- I do not know the english term either). This means the former boundaries still somehow "exist", in the hearts of people if not administratively. Consequently the older municipality relation can also be kept with an "admin_level=10". This is not required, but I'd say it's recommanded, it costs nothing to keep them (simply change admin_level) rather than remove them.
I know the recent mergings have been done properly (thank you Simon), but a certain someone added dozen of tags "place=village" for merged municipalities, which is *wrong*. In some cases they even removed the tags for the actual villages ! I spent a lot of time to fix them and move the tags to the corresponding municipality relations. Should any "place=village" tags re-appear where there is no village to indicate a merged municipality, I'll simply remove them and I won't take the time to transfer the tags to the actual municipality relationship.
Mit freundlische grüsse, Salutations amicales,
Hi Hubert,
Wie war das nochmal? "OSM ist keine Karte sondern eine Datenbank" Ommm......
Frage: wie soll eine historische Karte denn historische Grenzen anzeigen, wenn die nicht in OSM enthalten sind?
@simon: no comment zu meinem Post? http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/pipermail/talk-ch/2017-May/004072.html
Gruss Walter, aka wambacher
Am 08.05.2017 um 08:42 schrieb Hubert:
Hoi Zäme Alte Grenzen löschen, neue eintragen. Ich finde es gut wie es zur Zeit gehandhabt wird. Danke Simon für deinen Einsatz! Historische Grenzen behalten macht sinn bei historischen Karten. OSM soll die Gegenwart wiedergeben.
Am 07.05.2017 um 14:27 schrieb Jonathan Masur:
While we're on the topic, I think it's a good idea to remain the former municipality boundaries with admin_level=10, rather than delete them. In most merged municipalities I know, there is a requirement for example to have an equal representation of older municipality in commisions (<- I do not know the english term), and it is now possible for people to have a former municipality that merged as a "place of origin" (<- I do not know the english term either). This means the former boundaries still somehow "exist", in the hearts of people if not administratively. Consequently the older municipality relation can also be kept with an "admin_level=10". This is not required, but I'd say it's recommanded, it costs nothing to keep them (simply change admin_level) rather than remove them. ..
Naturally it costs something to maintain them, and given there is no way to verify them post merger*, they would simply decay, annoying everybody in the process.
Simon
* with the exception of such which are turned in to "quarters" in larger cities, which even if iffy, I believe there is general agreement to support that if there is a source available.
-
Hubert -
Jonathan Masur -
Simon Poole -
Walter Nordmann