[Tagging] My "weirdly unnatural aversion to relations"

[Mateusz Konieczny]

2. Październik 2018 13:30 od pla16021 at gmail.com <mailto:pla16021 at gmail.com>:


> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 10:47 AM Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoniecz at tutanota.com <mailto:matkoniecz at tutanota.com>> > wrote:
>
>>           >> 2. Oct 2018 11:44 by >> marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com <mailto:marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com>>> :
>>
>>
>>> or a school that has 3 buildings on the same street but with other 
>>> buildings among themselves that do not belong to the school.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sounds like a simple multipolygon with these 3 buildings as outer ways.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you link this case if that is more complicated?
>>
>>   
> I can give you a case that is more complicated.  The University of Edinburgh.  As well as a main>  campus, and a subsidiary mini-campus,  it has individual buildings scattered all around the city.> It could be mapped as a multipolygon but it would be a lot of work.  Imagine using a multipolygon>  natural=wood to handle many individual, widely-spaced trees by poking lots ofi rregular, large holes>  in it where trees aren't.
> See > https://www.ed.ac.uk/maps/maps <https://www.ed.ac.uk/maps/maps>>   And note that what you get there is the first of five tabs> covering different agglomerations of buildings.
>
> I think the only feasible way of handling this would be a site relation. Maybe you can think of a better> way of handling it.




Why selecting buildings and tagging them to site relation is easier than selecting building and adding them to  a multipolygon realation? 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20181002/d3db9aad/attachment.html>