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

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

Yep, this is how I understood that guideline to be. So if you have a polygon
where there was just a node before representing the same thing, you're free
to delete the node in favor of the polygon assuming no data (i.e., tag info)
is lost.

Here's what the wiki says [1]

One feature, one OSM-object
>
> Don't place nodes in (equally labelled) areas just to see some icon appear
> on the map. The renderers will display icons on areas as well and there's no
> need to have every parking-lot, soccer-ground etc. twice in the database.
>

[1]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#One_feature.2C_one_OSM-object


I don't think this means that you're not supposed to reuse the same OSM
object to represent different things.


On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com>wrote:

> I think "one feature, one object" is usually used in the other
> direction: you don't tag the boundary name=x and also put it in a
> boundary relation with name=x. You don't put a fast_food node in the
> middle of a building that only holds the fast food place; you put the
> fast_food tags on the building (or, even better, the parcel of land
> owned by the company, which includes the parking lot). Having a
> boundary relation and a node at the city center violates this
> guideline, but is a valid exception because the node carries other
> information about where the city center is.
>
> As for the specific question, I would say that if the boundary is
> defined by the natural feature, it's probably OK to use one way. For
> example, http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/78384443 is legally
> defined as "...to the water's edge of Little Lake Conway; thence run
> southeasterly along said waters edge to a point of intersection..."
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20100924/91eee246/attachment.html>