[Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

Richard ricoz.osm at gmail.com
Mon Aug 29 10:24:07 UTC 2016

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 04:56:13PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2016-08-28 15:23 GMT+02:00 Richard <ricoz.osm at gmail.com>:
> > As the cave may have other cave-wide attributes there may be other reasons
> > to have a relation for it.
> >
> no, you just need an object for the cave, and with natural=cave you will
> have this object (could be a node or a way, clearly a way is nicer because
> of shape, extent, etc.).

are you saying we should use "cave:ref" just to avoid the use of a relation?
Why? Is there a new trend to avoid relations at all cost? I would be delighted
if we could do that with landcover multipolygons.. and maybe we should?

Btw nodes of type natural=cave is kapu because the database has too many entries
such entries which are erroneous (following the ancient rejected proposal) for
what should be natural=cave_entry.


More information about the Tagging mailing list