0> In article <20091214215948.GC7911@x60s>, 0> Marko Mäkelä <URL:mailto:marko.makela@iki.fi> ("Marko") wrote: Marko> Hi Toby, all, and sorry for replying to an old post. Wow, that *is* old! :-) Marko> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 03:57:41PM +0100, Toby Speight wrote:
I have this in my style/lines:
/------ | boundary=administrative | { name '${left:country}/${right:country}' | '${left:county}/${right:county}' } | boundary=administrative & admin_level<5 | boundary=national [0x1e resolution 17] | boundary=administrative & admin_level<7 | boundary=political [0x1d resolution 19] | #boundary=administrative [0x1c resolution 21] | boundary=national [0x1e resolution 17] | boundary=political [0x1c resolution 17] \------
I haven't really tweaked it to my liking, but it shows the principle.
Marko> I adapted this for the default style last week. Marko> Marko> However, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary says Marko> that relations are used in order to avoid "name:left name:right, Marko> nation:right, region:right." I did not investigate if such *:left and Marko> *:right tags have been used in place of left:* and right:*, but I Marko> would like to remove the rules for left:* and right:* and solely rely Marko> on the relation names (one relation per country/province/city/suburb Marko> etc.). Seeing unnamed "State border" lines on the Garmin map should Marko> encourage mappers to define boundary relations. Marko> Marko> What do you think? Should I remove the rules for left:*, right:* Marko> names from the default style, or should I just add a comment to Marko> the effect that "these are deprecated, see the 'relations' file Marko> and wiki/Relation:boundary"? The boundary relations weren't in (common) use at the time I wrote that rule; do we have a way to get the relation values onto the lines? If so, then great. As to whether to deprecate the above, or just remove it, I have no strong opinions. Thanks for chasing this up - and I though /I/ was a long way behind with reading this list!