[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Site Relation

[fly]

Am 03.02.2011 20:01, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
> 2011/2/2 Tobias Knerr <osm at tobias-knerr.de>:
>> 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.
> 
> 
> +1
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> +1

please change the example on the proposal page, because a site-relation
is not need for this case

>> A site relation wouldn't add any information that cannot be determined
>> by an is-in-polygon test, a well-explored algorithmic task.
> 
>  ...
> 
> I was recently mapping an archaeological site, where part of it was
> fenced and required a fee. Other parts were located around, but not
> all of them adjacent (some had fields between them and the "main"
> site). I created 3 site relations: one for the part that was fenced
> and required a fee, one for the rest and one to combine the 2 site
> relations.

maybe we can use this as example on the poposal page.

Thanks fly