<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>Yes, using site relation in addition to actual object breaks this rule<br></div><div dir="auto">and it is undesirable (and site relations in general are problematic).<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It would be also problem with type=site site=camp_sites and similar<br></div><div dir="auto">trying to hide duplication.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Is there some reason why this camp sites cannot be mapped as areas<br></div><div dir="auto">if someone is doing such detailed mapping?<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">or map operator of a toilet or extra features?<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Nov 9, 2022, 22:00 by lists@fuchsschwanzdomain.de:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>Hello,<br></div><div><br></div><div>about a year ago I implemented support for site relations in OpenCampingMap.<br></div><div><br></div><div>My announcement from back then is at:<br></div><div>https://blog.geggus.net/2021/09/announcing-support-for-site-relations-in-opencampingmap/<br></div><div><br></div><div>Now a recent changeset discussion is questioning my whole approach because it<br></div><div>arguably violates the "One feature, one OSM element principle":<br></div><div><br></div><div>https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/126035627<br></div><div><br></div><div>Ignoring the principle (which is not absolute anyway) in this case and<br></div><div>adding a relation of type=site + tourism=camp_site containing the actual<br></div><div>tourism=camp_site object as a member does solve the problem thus I would go<br></div><div>for doing just this as I did a year ago.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Obviously others seem to differ here.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Currently the above changeset breaks my map regarding those campsites where<br></div><div>the tourism=camp_site tag has been removed from the site relation.<br></div><div><br></div><div>External features are no longer shown :(<br></div><div><br></div><div>So how to resolve this problem?<br></div><div><br></div><div>campsites with external features (e.g. sanitary facilities used by a<br></div><div>campsite and a sport-center) do exist in the wild and they usually do also<br></div><div>have on-the-ground objects (way, node, polygon-relation) where no other tag<br></div><div>than tourism=camp_site does make sense.<br></div><div><br></div><div>What do you think?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Sven<br></div><div><br></div><div>_______________________________________________<br></div><div>Tagging mailing list<br></div><div>Tagging@openstreetmap.org<br></div><div>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div> </body>
</html>