|
There are numerous prestigious sites in the world that contain several features. When searching for a prestigious site, users might expect to be taken to the bounds of the site. Within the site, users might be able to identify particular points of interest etc. There is therefore a topology. Two examples: To date I have marked such civil boundaries as "boundary -> administrative" within a relation because:
Furthermore, the nominatim search rankings are good (Spetchley Park Gardens / Goodwood) - where bus stops etc. are secondary to the place. I am keen to learn if there is a more appropriate way to represent such relations and if there is a perceived abuse of tags. Perhaps a "place" value is more appropriate? This problem seems clearer with national parks / protected areas such as New Forest. |
|
You tagged the as tourism=attraction, so there is no need to tag it with an administrative boundary. This is also incorrect IMHO. Administrative boundaries are for countries, cities, boroughs, etc. Not for tourist attraction. Nominatim will also find the feature when it is something else, such as a tourist attraction |
|
There seem to be problems with the geometry at the moment as well. This can also lead to Nominatim ignoring it. http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=5527857&noCache=true&_noCache=on http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=5537968&noCache=true&_noCache=on quite correct, thanks. I removed the outer boundary (on roads etc.) to leave only the various POIs. Searching for "Goodwood" displays the relation as the top hit and the relation analyzer says everything is all ok. Thanks.
(27 Sep '15, 20:34)
snodnipper
|
