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
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 24, 2021. It is now read-only.
then you will be able to see that both counties have been represented as nodes rather than polygons, so nominatim has had to guess the extent of the county.
If there is a boundary polygon for Surrey then it looks like there is something wrong with it as Nominatim isnt recognising it. Equally if there is a polygon then the node should be removed to avoid causing confusion.
Author: ponzu [Added to the original trac issue at 8.29pm, Wednesday, 13th April 2011]
TomH, your comment helps with my research into the same or similar issue and the recommendation to remove the county node echoes the advice I received elsewhere. However, is there a working alternative to using county node (in addition to countyt polygon, that is) as a method of generating a level-appropriate label on the slippy map? Currently, if there is no place node for county (city, suburb, village, hamlet), there will be no label - unless I'm missing some tagging rule.
Reporter: david[at]frankieandshadow.com
[Submitted to the original trac issue database at 4.57pm, Tuesday, 7th December 2010]
Nominatim is reporting the wrong counties in some cases.
I investigated a few where I got mismatches against a database I was comparing with for the UK. For example:
Alfold Crossways is in Surrey, but N reports it in West Sussex. It's not a map bug: you can see it is in Surrey on OSM.
Amport is in Hampshire (really, and on OSM) but reports Wiltshire
Appleton Roebuck is in North Yorkshire, but reports South Yorkshire
Braceborough is in Lincolnshire but reports Rutland
and so on.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: