[OSM-talk] Orphaned Relations

Tobias Knerr osm at tobias-knerr.de
Mon Jul 18 15:48:59 BST 2011

Josh Doe wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:51 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     you could have empty relations (no own members) with tags on them that
>     are themselves member of another relation and therefore
>     usefull/intended without their own members.
> True, though Sarah did define orphaned relations as "relations that have
> no members and are not member[s] of any other relation". Though I'd
> still say relations without members (but children of other relations)
> are meaningless and don't belong in OSM as they contain no geographic
> information.

Relations without members can be associated with geographic information
via their parents and are not inherently meaningless.

The relations described by Sarah are probably errors. Relations without
members can be used intentionally, and while they might not be your
preferred way of modelling a certain fact, deleting them should not be

-- Tobias Knerr

More information about the talk mailing list