[Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead
joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Wed Apr 17 13:30:38 UTC 2019
Re  Grande Cariçaie
Looking at the relation, all I see is “type=group” and name=“Grande
Cariçaie”. If you load the members, you see that each is a way,
fortunately the names include “Reserve Naturalle” so that helps.
But how am I to know why this relation is? Its not a nature reserve or
protected area by itself? Where does the name come from, if it isn’t
an official protected area with some sort of shared administration?
If it were a type=multipolygon with leisure=nature_reserve, or a
boundary with protected_area, it would be clear what feature this name
 Group of sculptures
I’ve seen sculpture gardens, which can be mapped as an area.
These sculptures are all in one row, so they could almost be mapped as
a linear way instead of as separate nodes.
But I agree that a relation type for a group of nodes could be useful
for a number of things, including art installations that are scattered
over an area and can’t be perfectly represented by a node, line or
However, I would still like this to work like other relations and
ways: the tags need to be on the object (the relation). In this case,
when I open the relation all I see is a list of nodes, with no tags. I
have to select one of the nodes to find out that it's a sculpture,
then check all the others to see if they are they same.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:24 PM Markus <selfishseahorse at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 16:26, Joseph Eisenberg
> <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > @MarKus: Regarding the tagging of islands or lake groups (clusters), I've
> > > already begun to use the type=group tag and hope that someone will push
> > > OSM-Carto to render such relations in the future.
> > It will be very difficult to handle such relations in osm2pgsql, the
> > tool that is used to import the database for rendering, as long as the
> > group relation can include other relations, ways, and nodes in one
> > object.
> > Is there any reason that lake groups cannot be tagged as multipolygon
> > relations? These are already handled by most database users, including
> > Openstreetmap-Carto.
> It's not just about groups of lakes. There are other groups, where the
> individual elements either have no name or individual names, for
> example this group of natural reserves  or this group of sculptures
> . The group of sculptures consists of nodes, thus a multi-polygon
> relation doesn't work for it. And for other groups that could be
> mapped as multi-polygons (such as the group of natural reserves), this
> would mean that we would need new tags for about every existing tag
> (at least for about every tag that is used on areas).
> : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8856988
> : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8961321
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging