[Tagging] Re : Ski resort (once again)

[Peter Wendorff]

Am 04.02.2013 19:00, schrieb yvecai:
> Janko,  to group a bunch of elements into a relation or add same a tag 
> to all these elements is not quite the same. A relation carry a 
> meaning (type), while with all these tags, It's seems to me just a 
> collection that you can find with a query :)
> (Actually, we all know that both are technically feasible, no need to 
> fill up the history for testing ;-).
I would like to disagree partly here.
You're right: a relation should carry a meaning, but if all meaning is 
"these piste routes belong to the resort X", then a tag resort:name=X 
would carry exactly the same meaning.
IMHO to make sense out of a relation here, there has to be more meaning 
due to the relation, like e.g. the office of the resort (if it's 
organized centrally somehow), information signs with maps of this 
resort, a common website for the resort and the like.
This way it's more feasible to use a relation for a ski resort.

The tag resort=X only is not a good argument IMHO, as with that you 
would get the very same result by querying all piste routes tagged with 
resort=X by grep from a planet or using overpass.

The issue that one route may belong to more than one resort is a 
slightly better argument, but there was an overpass solution for that as 
well in an earlier mail.
> Quoting the wiki page you linked:
> "Grouping relations really only make sense if the grouping is neither 
> geographical (as discussed above) nor exclusive ..."
>
> Exclusive you take care of with a semicolon, why not.
>
> For the geography, I think of this 'resorts' as a kind of geography by 
> itself, after all (not sure I use the term properly, pretty sure I 
> don't, in fact).
> When I go skiing to 'Le Risoux', I don't speak about the forest 
> (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/For%C3%AAt_du_Risoux), nor the mountain 
> (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Risoux), but rather of a bunch of 
> pistes, along with the 3 entry points and their cabin where people 
> drink tea selling you tickets, and so ...
but you could even describe it by "the resort Le Risoux roughly 
at/around Mont Risoux" which could be translated to a nice overpass 
query using a bbox around Mont Risoux (or a around statement) and the 
resort='Le Risoux' as a filter.

IMHO you should keep in mind what belongs to the "resort". I'm not 
skiing, but I guess, there are
- the pistes
- the lifts to transport people uphill again
- signposts with hints about routes, probably difficulties...
- probably lot more.

If you want to go for a relation, think about how to tie that together, 
and why it's useful to put that into a relation.
"Relation" is not "Collection". The verb of "relation" is "to relate to 
[each other]".
How does the bus stop relate to a street segment? they are related by a 
bus route where the bus uses that street to serve that bus stop.
For a ski resort this might be something like:
- lifts and the like have the role "transport_upwards"
- pists and the like have the role "piste"
- the resort as a whole might have a fee=yes if not the single pistes 
have to be paid but you can pay one bill for the whole resort

I'm sure there's more which could be incorporated, but find reasons for 
the relation, and what value the relational concept adds to the tagging 
solution alone.

regards
Peter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130204/5f4448ec/attachment.html>