[Tagging] Grouping buildings together using relations

Volker Schmidt voschix at gmail.com
Sun Jan 10 09:45:08 UTC 2021


Joseph,
Please do not forget that the wiki is mainly there to document actual usage
of tagging. The wording of the "site" wiki page is wide, and the concept of
what can and what cannot be described by this relation type is vague. I
also is mainly stating what it cannot be used for.
As said before looks as if many people have used it for this kind of object
(university)

In addition the English word "site" has a wide range of meanings, as I said
before.

The multipolygon solution is OK as long as you do not have to include
node-type objects.
"My" university example includes nodes, typically smaller University
institutes that occupy only part of a building, hence are tagged as nodes
within the building or on the outline of the building they are in.


Another remark: You say " I believe this is a mis-use of the concept of
relations in OpenStreetMap, since it is not representing a distinct feature
that can be observed to exist locally, on the ground."
Where does this come from? What about e.g. boundary relations?
Also this one: " mapping widely disparate faculties in different
neighborhoods as one database object is not something that can be verified
practically by mappers. "

Volker


On Sat, 9 Jan 2021, 20:42 Joseph Eisenberg, <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>
wrote:

> If the type=site relation is being used in this way, I believe this is a
> mis-use of the concept of relations in OpenStreetMap, since it is not
> representing a distinct feature that can be observed to exist locally, on
> the ground.
>
> If a site relation is used to group any set of related features in one
> "city", consider that there are cities like Jakarta and Tokyo which have
> millions of people spread over thousands of square kilometers and several
> different admin_level=4 (province/State) features. The city of Atlanta, as
> an urbanized "place", has almost 7000 square kilometers of suburban land
> with 5 million people
> https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US03817-atlanta-ga-urbanized-area/
>
> If a university has 4 campuses in 4 different suburbs of Atlanta or Tokyo,
> how is it  reasonable to map them with one relation?
>
> What about all the Los Angeles County libraries, spread over a county with
> over 10 million people and dozens of municipalities?
> https://lacountylibrary.org/library-locator/
>
> While it's good to use a multipolygon to precisely map the area of a
> university campus which is split in 2 or 3 parts by streets in between,
> mapping widely disparate faculties in different neighborhoods as one
> database object is not something that can be verified practically by
> mappers.
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 10:22 AM Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ... besides that the wiki's original and main job is to actually
> document the use of tags.
> > I was surprised how widespread its use is for universities - I had not
> checked that before i proposed  it.
> > As far as the use of the word "site" for extended or distributed
> objects: Hadrians Wall in the UK is a World Heritage Site. So is the Great
> Wall.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 at 18:05, Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner at gmx.at> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 17:35:26 +0100
> >> Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > A site is something at the same place, more or less. It is not
> something
> >> > the parts of which are located in 5 different places, that would be 5
> >> > sites. Spatial proximity is implied in a site relation. Universities
> with
> >> > different locations (typical situation in Europe at least), are
> operating
> >> > different "sites", not the same site which is distributed. That's not
> a
> >> > "site".
> >>
> >> I love how you maintain to be completely vague in that paragraph
> >> allowing for my example to be perfectly covered by it. "same place more
> >> or less"=same town works for me. ;)
> >>
> >> NB: if the site relation would only be used for arrangements that are
> >> packed together it would be completely unnecessary since then one could
> >> use a polygon to mark the area for most uses that I have seen in the
> >> past (hotels, unis, schools).
> >>
> >> --
> >> Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210110/1289f1bd/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list