[Tagging] Interpreting "One feature, one OSM-object"

[Richard Welty]

  On 9/23/10 7:27 AM, Peter Wendorff wrote:
>  Hi Richard.
> Never heard of that, so let me ask to clearify...
>
> On 23.09.2010 00:59, Richard Welty wrote:
>>  On 9/22/10 6:47 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>>> What happens if tags conflict then? For example just say the boundary
>>> actually had a name, e.g. "X Y Border", but the river also has a
>>> different name.
>> one of the operative theories here is that in cases of shared ways,
>> we should be using the higher level relations that contain the ways to
>> provide the distinction.
> Following situation: There are two shops inside the same building and 
> the building is a node only, yet.
> Let's assume the position of the shops cannot be distinguished - 
> examples can be found in discussions about e.g. post offices together 
> with stationery shops etc.
>
> If I interpret your statement correct, you propose to tag that as 
> follows:
i'm not proposing anything about that particular situation, the original
discussion was about shared ways (e.g., admin boundary and river
bank, or admin boundary and highway.)

furthermore, i would consider representing a building with unknown
outline with a node to be a bit iffy.

so no, i'm not proposing anything about how to set up relations for
this
> Nevertheless I think, it could be a very useful scheme to generally 
> support grouping tags together while differentiating several groups on 
> one geometry object.
using relations in this manner has potential, but the variations are far 
from
completely worked out or agreed upon.

richard