[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Site Relation

[Tobias Knerr]

Josh Doe wrote:
> The Relation:type=site proposal [1] has been around for over two
> years, and I think it is a very useful relation, so I'd like to help
> it get approved.
> [...]
> I've been using this relation for schools and playgrounds,
> and I believe it is a needed addition to our tagging arsenal.

It might be useful in some cases, but it shouldn't be overused. If the
site is adequately described by a polygon, it can and imo should be
mapped as an area with the appropriate tags.

For example, a school that occupies one site with some buildings, sport
facilities ... can trivially be mapped as an area with amenity=school
and other tags (such as name) referring to the entire site, with
separate elements for the buildings contained within.

A site relation wouldn't add any information that cannot be determined
by an is-in-polygon test, a well-explored algorithmic task.

I can support the proposal if (and only if) it is made clear that site
relations are only to be used where simpler tools aren't sufficient.

Tobias Knerr