[Tagging] one feature one element

[Warin]

On 04/07/19 20:09, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> I've been tagging it with an empty amenity=school polygon around 
> everything, and then two points with amenity=school + name=* + all the 
> other specific tagging.

I too have used similar.
Usually a polygon/way with one school on it and then a node inside it 
for the other school, or schools if more than one.


> But if mapped like that, a data consumer would see 3 schools. I like 
> your solution with overlapping multipolygons.
>
> Janko

On one occasion I have separated then into 2 separate ways, I am certain 
that some of each area will be shared from time to time, but it seams to 
be a good compromise. Every other time I have not had any reasonable 
chance of doing this.

Most people would consider amenity=school to be a land use, along with 
other tags such as leisure=recreation_ground.

>
> čet, 4. srp 2019. u 09:58 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com 
> <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> napisao je:
>
>     The one feature page states:
>
>       * More than one of something on the same site e.g. two schools
>         sharing grounds. Normally if the schools are separate they
>         would have separate neighbouring grounds, but if the only
>         thing defining a separation between two schools is their
>         buildings, then the containing area should be tagged with a
>         suitable landuse
>         <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse>=*, and the
>         buildings tagged individually.
>
>
>     from
>     https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element#Examples_of_bad_situations
>
>     I don’t believe this is common practice, e.g. there isn’t even a
>     landuse value for schools.
>     I would rather tag 2 schools with distinct buildings and shared
>     grounds as 2 overlapping amenity=school areas with the “other
>     buildings” (those of the other school) excluded via multipolygon
>     inner roles.
>
>     If we did like currently suggested in the wiki it would also loose
>     the information about the grounds (only the buildings would result
>     as schools).
>
>     Cheers, Martin
>
>
>     sent from a phone
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190704/f4a97817/attachment.html>