[Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Jul 30 07:54:51 UTC 2019

Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 00:51 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>:

> -1 to a site relation for an area with a defined outer boundary.

> Relation = boundary (and =multipolygon) works fine for defining an area,
> and you can make holes to exclude at my “outparcels” or villages which are
> not part of the official protected area.

the difference is that in case a thing which is either outer or inner
member of a boundary or multipolygon changes, you will not know whether the
MP has to change or you have to duplicate the old border for the
multipolygon because it should remain. In a site relation it is clearer
that the modification of a member should likely have immediate effect on
the relation as well.

> Mappers don’t need to add things to relations when the geometry is enough
> to show that node A isi side of area B.

different semantics. IMHO there are situations where explicit relation is
preferable over implicit spatial relation.
This said, I am hardly ever using site relations ;-)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190730/b3343d4d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list