|
Keepright wants me to add tag type=boundary to all the boundary relations I have created for city areas (admin_level=9). It says type=* is mandatory for a relation. I read somewhere that if a relation is tagged boundary=administrative, then type=boundary is implied and this was good enough for me. The practical upshot of trying to please Keepright is that once a if a relation is tagged with type=boundary, it shows up in in the bottom left pane of Potlatch2 (where it shows which relations a way belongs to) as "boundary administrative [ref] [relation name]", with only "boundary admin" visible unless the pane is severely expanded. If a way belongs to several of these, then obviously this is not very handy. If there is no type=boundary tag, then it shows up as simply "[ref] [relation name]" in the pane, which is helpful when there are multiple lines. I would prefer to continue omitting type=boundary if that's okay. |
|
I usually tag boundaries as type=multipolygon because that's what they essentially are. (OSM Inspector will display a warning if a boundary is tagged type=boundary instead of type=multipolygon, and there are IMHO valid reasons for not using type=boundary). Keepright is correct though in saying that we don't usually like relations without any type=* tag. While theoretically the type could be inferred from your setting of boundary=administrative, we don't usually rely on that. Oops. The wiki page on boundary relations says to tag type=multipolygon ''or'' type=boundary and gives some background on why we have both and why software has to support both. At the same time, other sources explicitly recommend using type=boundary. Yours is the first recommendation, and I know you qualified it as YHO, not to use type=boundary. I guess the important part is that a type has to be assigned, so that's what I am going to keep in mind. As far as the UI, multipolygons show up as "multipolygon [ref] [name]" in the Potlatch2 pane, which is slightly less bulky than the alternative.
(21 Apr '11, 22:11)
ponzu
|
