[Tagging] site relations for city walls?
voschix at gmail.com
Mon Jul 13 21:28:02 UTC 2020
On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 at 22:56, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> actually all of these could be „grouped“ with tags alone, e.g distributed
> museums could have an identifying „network“ tag (or sth similar).
But why invent a new network tag, if we have a site relation, waiting to
be used. (I was thinking of open air museums, where the various exhibits
are spread over the landscape)
> For power plants a site might be appropriate, if an area does not do it
> and you don’t want to rely on only tags.
If you have ever looked at the complexities of a hydro-power-plant with
dams, lakes, pipes, turbines deep in the mountains or in dedicated
buildings . they are really complex, and only parts of it are visible on
> In theory objects like the Great Wall in China can and should be modeled
> as areas, although they seem to be linear in nature, they are also thick
> enough to „require“ an area representation in order to be well mapped in
> the scale of OpenStreetMap (you can walk on it).
That's not true - you can walk on parts of it, other parts are completely
missing, others are heaps of stones.
> In practice we would also want a way to have preliminary mapping as a
> line, and mixed geometry relations. A multipolygon relation for all parts
> of the great wall would likely be broken every day, and would be over the
> member limits for relations.
It's not a multipolygon - it is bits and pieces, some connected, same not.
Some may be linear (in first approximation).
> Would those that are in favour of using a site relation for a linear,
> circular, interrupted structure, 19km long and some meters wide, also see
> it as a good relation type for the Chinese Great Wall?
You lost me with your question here.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging