[Tagging] Grouping buildings together using relations

[Eric H. Christensen]

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Monday, January 4, 2021 9:04 PM, Jmapb <jmapb at gmx.com> wrote:

> (Failed to send this to the tagging list, sorry the double-send Stefan)
>
> On 1/4/2021 7:26 PM, Stefan Tauner wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 05 Jan 2021 00:12:47 +0000
> > "Eric H. Christensen via Tagging" tagging at openstreetmap.org wrote:
> >
> > > After reviewing the wiki page[0] regarding the types of relations,
> > > I'm not seeing a solution for what I'm trying to do.
> > > In an effort to make it easier to maintain several libraries that are
> > > all in the same system and share much of the same information (like
> > > opening_hours), I want to group these together in a relation so when
> > > these commonalities change it makes it much easier update and keeps
> > > the entire library system up to date.
> > > Is there an appropriate way to do this in a relation, today?
> > > I have used the site relation in the past for this.
> > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:site
> > > Example my alma mater TU Wien which is very spread out through the city:
> > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/33319
>
> There's a continuum here, but to my mind a university, even if it's
> spread across a whole city, can be thought of a single site. The
> branches of a library system, perhaps less so... I'd probably just put
> matching operator=* or network=* tags on each of the branches. But if
> you (Eric) are intent on doing a relation I don't think there's a better
> type than "site". (You could do multipolygon if the the branches are all
> entire buildings or otherwise mapped as polygons, but that's even worse
> IMO, because a multipolygon really should be a single thing, not a
> collection of things.)
>
> Regardless, don't expect data consumers who are looking for library
> opening_hours or other info to find them in the parent relation. You'll
> still have to keep the tags up-to-date on each member. So again, I'm not
> sure it's a useful exercise.

Yeah, I'm just looking for a better way to keep these things in sync.  My county is only four branches but are spread out so you can't do a single download in JOSM and then filter out everything.  Using the Turbo tool may be the better way to do this.  I was hoping that a relation would be an easier way to maintain these but it doesn't seem like it will be.

Okay, back to the individual changes.

--Eric