[Tagging] site relations for city walls?
ycai at mailbox.org
Mon Jul 13 03:59:15 UTC 2020
@Martin, the quote from the wiki really looks like a multipolygon definition. Would those walls be mapped as a multipolygon instead?
Why do you say "A site means things are concentrated around a point", sites relation helps to map disjoint elements, but I don't think I saw anything about their repartition. Also it certainly makes no sense to have sites extending over extremely large areas.
Le 13 juillet 2020 01:14:40 GMT+02:00, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> a écrit :
>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“.
Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec Courriel K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma brièveté.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging