[Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Warin]

On 12/10/18 12:57, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> What I'm learning by reading this thread over again is that there is a 
> lot of confusion about relations in the context I'm interested in. 
> Group or site, whether one or the other will render or, more 
> importantly for me at least, is whether the object will be findable in 
> a Nominatim search.
Why not bet both ways?
Make both a site and a group relation.

> I would hate like hell to have tagged such an object and then not be 
> able to locate it. I don't care which method gets the nod on this list 
> but in the end I want those features to be findable.
>
> Dave
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:40 AM SelfishSeahorse 
> <selfishseahorse at gmail.com <mailto:selfishseahorse at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 21:16, Tod Fitch <tod at fitchdesign.com
>     <mailto:tod at fitchdesign.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     > I had not noticed the existence of the group relation before.
>     Seems to me that it and the controversial site relation have some
>     overlap. For the examples I can think of where I think the site
>     relation works it seems like the group relation would also work.
>     So, at present and lacking counter-examples, it seems to me that
>     one of these two relations should go away.
>
>     There is quite some difference between the suggested group relation
>     and a site relation:
>
>     A site relation is an own feature that consists of several other
>     features. (For example, a wind farm cannot be mapped as a power plant
>     area, but it can be mapped as a power plant site relation with
>     multiple wind turbines as members.[1])
>
>     [1]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3792332
>
>     In contrast, a group relation isn't a separate feature, but just a
>     name; the feature is already defined for its members. (Like in our
>     example the two ponds 'Small Pond' and 'Big Pond' that together are
>     called 'Groble'.)
>
>     This is also why a site (or multipolygon) relation wouldn't work
>     in our example.
>
>     Regards
>     Markus
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20181012/3eeb652c/attachment.html>