[Tagging] My "weirdly unnatural aversion to relations"
tod at fitchdesign.com
Tue Oct 2 20:42:00 UTC 2018
> On Oct 2, 2018, at 1:22 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> sent from a phone
>> On 2. Oct 2018, at 17:01, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com> wrote:
>> Why selecting buildings and tagging them to site relation is easier than selecting building and adding them to a multipolygon realation?
> you don’t need polygons for the site relation, you can add nodes…
And on a site relation you can add linear ways.
My thought would be for a ski area. There is may an overall boundary polygon. I happen to volunteer at a winter sports area where there is no formal boundary but I do see formal boundary markers at alpine/downhill ski areas.
Within the boundary (if it exists), there are likely to be one or more interior polygons covering pistes/runs. For a nordic/cross country area the pistes themselves are likely to be narrow enough that ways rather than areas would be used to map them.
If there is a formal boundary and pistes wide enough to map as areas, how does that work? An outer polygon within an outer polygon?
There might be nodes marking locations of emergency equipment cache locations. And, for an alpine/downhill ski area there one or more ski lifts/aerial best mapped as ways.
So how do you add single nodes or linear ways to a multipolygon?
Using a multipolygon for this sounds a bit like the fellow that only had a hammer so everything looks like a nail to them.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the Tagging