[Tagging] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

[Yves]

Site relations are often used to models thing that aren't spatially joined, like windfarms, universities...
I can easily imagine it's reasonable to use them for campings in some corner cases where a single area doesn't work. 

Yves

Le 10 novembre 2022 12:11:44 GMT+01:00, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org> a écrit :
>Yes, using site relation in addition to actual object breaks this rule
>and it is undesirable (and site relations in general are problematic).
>
>It would be also problem with type=site site=camp_sites and similar
>trying to hide duplication.
>
>Is there some reason why this camp sites cannot be mapped as areas
>if someone is doing such detailed mapping?
>
>or map operator of a toilet or extra features?
>
>
>Nov 9, 2022, 22:00 by lists at fuchsschwanzdomain.de:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> about a year ago I implemented support for site relations in OpenCampingMap.
>>
>> My announcement from back then is at:
>> https://blog.geggus.net/2021/09/announcing-support-for-site-relations-in-opencampingmap/
>>
>> Now a recent changeset discussion is questioning my whole approach because it
>> arguably violates the "One feature, one OSM element principle":
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/126035627
>>
>> Ignoring the principle (which is not absolute anyway) in this case and
>> adding a relation of type=site + tourism=camp_site containing the actual
>> tourism=camp_site object as a member does solve the problem thus I would go
>> for doing just this as I did a year ago.
>>
>> Obviously others seem to differ here.
>>
>> Currently the above changeset breaks my map regarding those campsites where
>> the tourism=camp_site tag has been removed from the site relation.
>>
>> External features are no longer shown :(
>>
>> So how to resolve this problem?
>>
>> campsites with external features (e.g.  sanitary facilities used by a
>> campsite and a sport-center) do exist in the wild and they usually do also
>> have on-the-ground objects (way, node, polygon-relation) where no other tag
>> than tourism=camp_site does make sense.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Sven
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20221110/8b92c738/attachment-0001.htm>