[Talk-us] redundant tagging on relations and member ways

Evin Fairchild evindfair at gmail.com
Wed Oct 31 21:14:49 GMT 2012

My guess is that people are doing that because in Potlatch 2, when you put tags into just a relation, it doesn’t render in Potlatch the same way that it does if you put the same tags into a way.  Let me explain what I mean.  For example if you want to make multipolygon relation for a lake, when you put the natural=water tag in the relation but don’t put it in for the member, Potlatch won’t display the lake in blue.  You have to put a natural=water tag into a way for it to be displayed blue.  But whether the member way has the appropriate tags or not doesn’t affect how it’s actually rendered on the map.  What I’m saying is that some users might think that the fact that the lake isn’t blue when you put the natural=water tag in the relation means that it might not display properly on the map.  Potlatch needs to be changed so that this doesn’t happen.




From: Ian Villeda [mailto:villeda at mapbox.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 1:10 PM
To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-us] redundant tagging on relations and member ways





I've noticed a few instances where members of multipolygon relations have the same tags as the relations. This seems redundant and I wondering why we wouldn't / haven't moved the tags to the relations. Specifically I'm thinking of cases like this:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/135822 vs 



Of course we wouldn't want to remove way-specific tags (i.e. district=* tags), but I wanted to make sure there was a reason the name=, landuse=, and leisure= tags haven't already been deleted in favor of tagging the relation. Happy to make the edits so long as I'm not stepping on any toes / missing something obvious. 





ian villeda (ian29 <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ian29> )

mapbox | developmentseed



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20121031/1846b61b/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list