<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 28/03/2015 3:21 AM, Bryce Nesbitt
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAC9LFPcJDxdfU9bq=_Hxvei10H-NHC91CmGQ7gBRC6BYfyK10w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">Site relations are clearly the best
solution when micro-mapping.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">But this is not a one size fits all
choice. There are many mappers, tools, and places that are
not ready for that level of complexity.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">We're lucky to get many campsites
mapped at all. In simple cases a few attributes on a node
does just fine, gets the job done,</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">and causes no problems.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">A huge downside of #4 is for armchair
mapping. I may have access to a website for a caravan_site,
and know that if offers showers,</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">laundry and a dump station. <u><i> But
I have no idea where on the site they are.</i></u> All I
can really do is tag those amenities as attributes.</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
OR .. you could place each node of the separate features close
together with a fixme tag on them ... <br>
This way you don't need two systems for tagging the same thing. And
it makes it easier for a mapper to move them to the correct location
when they are found. And it conveys the information and being
spacialy close they indicate that the loctions are not absolutely
correct. ANd the renders don't need to recognise two different
systems for the same thing. <br>
<br>
</body>
</html>