<div dir="ltr"><div>On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 4:02 PM Mateusz Konieczny <<a href="mailto:matkoniecz@tutanota.com">matkoniecz@tutanota.com</a>> wrote:</div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>Why selecting buildings and tagging them to site relation is easier than selecting building and adding them to a multipolygon realation? <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I can't even begin to comprehend how that would possibly work.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Well, maybe I can. If we make the outer role of the polygon "not university" then we can add the</div><div>individual, scattered buildings as inner role "university." Seems bizarre to me, but feasible. It's</div><div>analogous to the way you can use a multipolygon to define a wood with ponds in it. Except</div><div>"wood" is a concrete term everyone understands but "not university" is not.<br></div><div><br></div><div>If we make the outer role "university" then the inner roles have to be all the places that the</div><div>university buildings are not, with role "not university." Not only do we have the conceptual</div><div>problem of "not university" but it would be very fiddly to map.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I can't see any way of using multipolygons for this case that makes sense and is easy to do. If</div><div>you can, then please explain it.</div><div><br></div><div>A site relation, however, is simple. Just add each building to the relation. Why do you consider</div><div>this to be no easier than the multipolygon approach?</div><div><br></div><div>-- <br></div><div>Paul</div><div><br></div></div></div>