[Tagging] site relations for city walls?

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Sun Jul 12 23:14:40 UTC 2020

sent from a phone

> On 13. Jul 2020, at 00:11, Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com> wrote:
> I do consider a site relation a fitting approach for a city wall.

its use would also go against the wiki definition which states: „ This relation is not to be used in cases where the element can be represented by one or more areas and neither linear ways nor nodes outside these areas would have to be included or excluded from within these areas“

clearly the remains of the Aurelian walls can be nicely  represented by areas. Indeed it seems a good representation to map them as buildings, and people including myself have started to do it some time ago.

Generally I believe the requirement for a site relation that its constituting parts should be in the same town, is not strict enough. A handful of objects scattered around in a town are not a „site“. A site means things are concentrated around a point, and when there are more things in the other side of the town that somehow belonged to it, they would be considered off site, i.e. their relationship would come from other aspects, not because they are part of the same „site“.

Cheers Martin 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200713/decf666e/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list