[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Site Relation

Josh Doe josh at joshdoe.com
Thu Feb 3 13:49:19 GMT 2011


Tobias and Eugene,
I understand your point, so I've added  a few sentences to the
proposal [1] about using simpler tools when appropriate.

-Josh

[1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site#Proposal

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Tobias Knerr <osm at tobias-knerr.de> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



More information about the Tagging mailing list