Indian districts tagging

Currently I see that we have tagged most of the Indian districts(more than 300) with place=county but this tag is mainly used on nodes rather than on administrative boundaries ways that are tagged with boundary=administrative. But we have added administrative boundaries for all districts in India and haven’t tagged with place tags. And also we have used admin_level=5 for all district boundaries but the wiki shows admin_level=6 for district boundaries.

Request the community to comment or provide suggestions on -

1. Whether to use [place=district instead of place=county]( since we refer them as districts on the ground in India.
2. Whether to update the India wiki page to avoid confusion on using admin_level=5 for districts considering we haven't added [revenue division boundaries](


In my opinion,

  1. We shall use place=district instead of a county as we call.
  2. Seems the India wiki page has been updated advocating admin_level=7 for districts. (Revision update -

The district level was set to 5 originally. As far as I’m aware they remain at that level now. The wiki has been changed apparently without discussion , either on the wiki discussion page, or here, or in the mailing list. And then in my opinion it should only have been changed with a consensus to change the map at the same time.

I’ve asked the person that made the change to comment here and on the wiki.


I have made the changes in that page, as what I already know. Whatever in the page should correspond with the ground reality. Map should follow as well. There was a discussion in the mailing list when this change was made. Check this thread:


Thank you jaisuvyas. I now remember seeing those posts, plainly it slipped by me. Sorry.

But I think my comment about consensus and discussion retains validity, given that this is a significant topic. Two points -

  1. Any discussion should be adequately wide, adequately publicised, and over sufficient time. There are three significant places for discussion, here in the forums, in the mailing list, and to a limited extent on the wiki page,. This seems to have been only discussed in the mailing list. There are a limited number of posts made over two days, (involving maybe five users?) and no follow up. It should have been noted and cross referenced in the forum and in the wiki discussion. I tend to look at the forums because it is the simplest to view and follow.

  2. When a major change such as this is being discussed, how the change is to be made should also be discussed and then followed through. Really the ones who proposed it have some responsibility to see it through. I don’t know what has been done to implement this, little as far as I can see after looking at some districts in KA, KE and AP which are still level 5. If district tagging has been changed elsewhere else it should be adequately documented so the progress of the revision can be tracked.

Thanks for the update and clarification!

I have made the edits to districts of AP and TS before I came to know about the updated admin_level of 7. Since then, I’ve posted in another topic, here in the form, asking for help to map new TS districts.

I hope to update the admin levels of AP districts soon. If you, or anyone else, would like to do, I more than happy for it!

Thanks for information.