Proposal talk:Municipality

place or relation

I think municipalities shouldn't use the place tag. A relation would work better i think. You would create a relation name=municipalityname capital=city|villagename and add all the cities, villages, towns to this relation. This would also more effectively replace the is_in tag.

IMHO place node may be still useful. Sometimes exact boundary may be not available (in poland official boundary data is copyrighted) and placing region/county/minicipality labels on map may be still useful. -- Jajcuś 18:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I support this proposal and use this tag already in conjunction with is_in:*. It fills out the current set of place=country, place=state, place=county. It is so much easier to use than relations, and, as far as I know, does not preclude the use of relations in the long-term. MikeCollinson 11:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What about boundary=administrative?

I've been tagging municipal boundaries in South Africa with boundary=administrative and the appropriate admin_level= value, and type=boundary relations to attach the name and other information. What would this proposed scheme provide that boundary=administrative doesn't? - Htonl 12:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The boundary is not always known and item for a municipality may still be useful, see above. -- Jajcuś 18:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

County, region, country, state keys

I think proposing this keys for place=municipality is a mistake. There are is_in:count=*, is_in:region=*, is_in:country=* keys for that. -- Jajcuś 18:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. is_in:island=* is also another ocassional possibility, strict hierachicy is not necessary. MikeCollinson 11:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)