[Tagging] My "weirdly unnatural aversion to relations"

[Richard]

On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 09:05:53PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Oct 2018 19:27 by ricoz.osm at gmail.com <mailto:ricoz.osm at gmail.com>:
> 
> 
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 05:01:17PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> >
> >> > 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>>>  <>> 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? 
> >
> > looks like abuse of multipolygon relation to me.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why abuse? Sole reason for multipolygon relations is to tag 
> disjointed areas or areas with holes in them. 

you name it. AREAS. A university is not an area.

Rcihard