Template talk:Map Features:boundary

Administrative boundary element types

On the page Tag:boundary=administrative, it says that tag is properly applied to , and not . I believe the value in the table should be changed in order to be consistent. ZeLonewolf (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Multipolygon and boundary relations are interpreted as areas. --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

If so, one or more of these pages is wrong:

• Template:Map_Features:boundary says that boundary=administrative is valid for .
• boundary=administrative says that are valid, and are invalid.
• Template:ValueDescription has the section below, which says that onRelation means non-multipolygon relations. I logically interpret this to mean exactly as written, i.e., relations tagged type=multipolygon and not relations tagged type=boundary.
  • onNode: yes if the feature being described is suitable for use on node elements, no otherwise
  • onWay: yes if the feature being described is suitable for use on linear (non-area) way elements, no otherwise
  • onArea: yes if the feature being described is suitable for use on area elements, no otherwise
  • onRelation: yes if the feature being described is suitable for use on (non-multipolygon) relation elements, no otherwise
• Area says "An area (or filled polygon) can be defined as an enclosed filled area defined as a closed way with appropriate associated tags or using a multipolygon relation creating an area from one of more ways". It says nothing about using a boundary relation.

So which of these is correct and which of these needs to be changed? I always understood boundary relations to be a while refers only to multipolygon relations based on all of the other pages linked here, hence my initial comment. ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm still inclinded to consider boundary relations areas, but I don't think the two of us can decide this alone. We should ask about this in a larger forum, perhaps the Talk mailing list, or the wiki talk page. --Jeisenbe (talk)

I posted to wiki talk as it's hard to explain the issues without the use of markup. ZeLonewolf (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Special Economic Zone

Resolved

Please add "special_economic_zone" based on the approved proposal. I'm not sure how to edit this template without breaking things.

• Description: A government-defined area in which business and trade laws are different.
• Image:

--ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Taglists

Is there a reason this template is so complicated? Other sections use the taglists template. Is there an intent to standardize on one scheme or another for these templates? --ZeLonewolf (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

All of the Map Features lists were like this in the past. The taglists have some advantages and disadvantages: the load much slower, you can't see or edit the text directly, they can break when Taginfo goes down, and they only work if there is a page for each tag with a correct description = * field, you can't add extra comments or suggestions, to translate to other languages you would have to create a page for each tag first. The original template style looks nasty when editing, but apparently it is set up so you can easily make a translated version in a different language. --Jeisenbe (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It's less complicated now. maro21 19:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)