<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1251">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">I don't see a problem
with duplicating a tag in both the relation and sections of the
object. In my case I have been mapping the national highway
network of Turkmenistan the last few months. I have created
relations so that all segments belong to one or more highways (P-1
from Ashgabat to Koneurgench, for example). However, most map
renderers will not indicate that, plus the road is known to
locals in most areas by that name, so I have also added it to
the name=* and ref=* tags. Too much data? I don't think so.
Each tag serves a slightly different purpose, and the relation
serves a wholly different purpose and is not visible in most map
products.</font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Please don't go to the
Turkmenistan map and delete all my hand-entered tags on the
highways!</font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Allan Mustard</font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/2/2018 5:04 AM, Dave Swarthout
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKWFYhUS=FwGshCrOGR=yvTYOMDz9j-c_M72wA1DJa9m27wGNg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1251">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Putting aside the discussion about type for a moment, this
topic relates to a discussion I'm having with a user about
tags and multipolygons, specifically where the tags go, so I
believe it fits into this discussion. I removed the tags from
the ways for a section of the Trans Alaska Pipeline (TAP)
because those same tags were on the relation itself. The user
asked in a changeset comment why I had done that. I replied
that IMO, any tags that applied to the pipeline as a whole
belong on the relation and need not, indeed should not, be
repeated on each way. The TAP is 1300 km long, has countless
bridges and sections where it is underground and then
overground. The only tags that should appear on the ways
themselves are attributes of those ways, for example,
location=overground or location=underground, and tags for
bridge and layer. Everything else, Wikidata, substance=oil,
man_made=pipeline, etc, should appear only on the relation.
The folks who added the pipeline mostly via Tiger imports many
years ago tagged both. When I would occasionally add or
replace a section, I was always careful to copy all the tags
from a neighboring section to the new section. Now, I think
that is incorrect.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If those tags appear on each way in addition to the
relation, maintaining any consistency in the tagging on this
beast would be almost impossible. I have done quite a bit of
re-aligning of the TAP over the years as our available imagery
improves but have always been tentative about removing those
redundant tags thinking I would get around to it someday. In
fact, it seems apparent that this is one major reason
relations were invented, especially for objects like routes —
to ensure tagging consistency and connectedness between the
many individual member ways that comprise the whole.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So, what is the correct and accepted way to tag something
like the TAP?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Dave<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 7:17 AM Kevin Kenny <<a
href="mailto:kevin.b.kenny@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">kevin.b.kenny@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">why
not a multipolygon? I agree that you don’t need
additional tags for a group relation, just type=group,
a name and the members, but for a site you would need
something that describes the site, a tag for a group
of water areas, so as long as all the members are
areas (or parts), a multipolygon would be better.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">When the lakes themselves are complex
multipolygons with many islands, repeating that data for
the group is likely to be a maintenance nightmare. (I know
this from curating boundary=protected_area relations that
include partial shorelines on such lakes. It's especially
fun when the boundary splits islands.)</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">Dave Swarthout<br>
Homer, Alaska<br>
Chiang Mai, Thailand<br>
Travel Blog at <a href="http://dswarthout.blogspot.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://dswarthout.blogspot.com</a></div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>