[Tagging] (no subject)

Jo winfixit at gmail.com
Tue Dec 6 01:30:46 GMT 2011

2011/12/6 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>

> 2011/12/5 Jo <winfixit at gmail.com>:
> > 2011/12/5 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> >> 7) Instead of "hotel:garden = yes" it might be more useful to
> >> actually draw the garden (leisure=garden, garden:style=,
> >> garden:type=hotel or similar)
> > And then group them all together with a site relation?
> I'd use a polygon (amenity=hotel, etc.) for the whole complex, this
> can be easily evaluated, (what nobody does so far with site relations,

I get complaints if I start using polygons that way...

> >> > hotel:parking = yes;Ladeuze
> >> you should include the parking polygon/node in the hotel polygon, so
> >> this tag is not needed (IMHO)
> > This underground parking lot is 500m away though.
> you could use a multipolygon relation for the hotel (instead of the
> polygon) and have the parking with the role outer attached to this
> relation.

The parking lot in Leuven is a public one, not exclusive for the hotel.

I changed many tags on the 2 existing hotels, according to the new insights
(removed many as well), and I added another hotel, which is more like a
spa, so it has pools and saunas and whirlpools on-site:


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20111206/daddd46c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list