[Tagging] start_date variants

[Sergio Manzi]

Hi Stephan!

Yes, a relation can be made up of a relation: no problem with that, AFAIK.

In your particular case, anyway, I'm afraid there is something wrong:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1937535 (name=MuseumsQuartier) is tagged as "building=yes" and also with "building:architecture=baroque", but in reality MusemQuartier is not "_*a*_" building, but an area, a cultural district (on https://www.mqw.at/en/ I read "/MuseumsQuartier Wien is one of the largest districts for contemporary art and culture in the world/"), made up of several different building_*s*_ ranging from the baroque to the contemporary era.

MuseumsQuartier (/the district/) is already mapped with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/335982323 as both a tourism=attraction and landuse=commercial (/yeah... I know... it seems we miss a specific tag for cultural districts and I think that's something we should address.../), and several of the tags applied to relation 1937535 (e.g. wikidata=*, wikipedia=*) are already there. Anything globally related to the MuseumsQuartier cultural district should be tagged on that way.

If relation 1937535 is meant to map *one* of the several buildings which are part of the MuseumQuartier district, then anything related to the district should be deleted from it and probably the name should also be changed: a building is not a /quartier/ and I suppose the correct name for that particular building (/the baroque building encompassing the district/) to be /Hofstallungen./

The "building:start_date=1725" tag should be modified into just a "start_date=1725" tag, and the "start_date=2001-06..2001-09" tag should be instead applied to the /quartier /(/the way.../) if it is a property of the district, or, if it is meant to indicate the date of the /Hofstallungen /renewal, it should probably go into a note of the 1937535 relation or we could use and document a "renewal_date=*" key (/there is already 1 usage for that, here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7255270/).

Cheers!

Sergio


On 2019-02-17 08:07, Stephan Bösch-Plepelits wrote:
> In the particular case which I was describing in the opening mail
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1937535
> the building is already a multipolygon relation.
>
> Do you think a relation with a multipolygon relation as member would work?
> Or would it be better to duplicate the multipolygon relation?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190217/ed24fcb3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3675 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190217/ed24fcb3/attachment.bin>