[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Site Relation
marc.gemis at gmail.com
Mon Sep 7 05:49:15 UTC 2015
I think it is also used with historic, not only heritage, e.g. 
Thus there are at most ca. 3800 more.
On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Joachim <noreply at freedom-x.de> wrote:
> The relation type=site proposal  has been around for seven years
> now. Milliams is the original creator of the draft while Joshdoe
> cleaned up the proposal page, added some to the discussion and also
> sent out an RFC in 2011 .
> The relation has a bit of troubled history since the original idea -
> usage for a typical school - is strongly discouraged now. The RFC
> brought up the point that the relation is not needed if the feature
> can be represented by a polygon.
> The definition now is: "A way to group features (represented by
> nodes/ways/areas/relations) which belong together but cannot be
> adequately described by an area/multipolygon. [...] This relation is
> understood to group man-made objects. For groups of natural objects
> which share the same name see proposed relation Cluster. "
> Further changes since the last RFC:
> * The key site=* has been deprecated, better use the full tag instead
> (e.g. amenity=university).
> * The label role has been removed since this is strongly resisted by
> * The entrance role has been removed since it did not fit the new
> definition. Discussion is ongoing to readd it.
> * The perimeter role has been moved to a sub-proposal with new definition.
> * Documented usage examples from the wiki have been added.
> I'd like to bring your attention to the proposal. Please visit the
> proposal page  and add your comments to the discussion.
> Cheers, Joachim (Jojo4u)
>  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging