You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In a recent discussion on the forum there was the suggestion to use boundary=ceremonial for county level boundaries and only fall back to admin boundary 6 when there is no ceremonial boundary. In theory something like this:
for address levels should do the trick. In practice, it seems to trigger some odd behaviour when computing the address rank. There might also be some issues with ceremonial and admin boundaries being almost but not quite the same, i.e. we do not get proper contains hierarchies with this arrangement. Needs more investigation and some BDD tests.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In a recent discussion on the forum there was the suggestion to use
boundary=ceremonial
for county level boundaries and only fall back to admin boundary 6 when there is no ceremonial boundary. In theory something like this:for address levels should do the trick. In practice, it seems to trigger some odd behaviour when computing the address rank. There might also be some issues with ceremonial and admin boundaries being almost but not quite the same, i.e. we do not get proper contains hierarchies with this arrangement. Needs more investigation and some BDD tests.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: