[OSM-talk] Wood & Park mapnik carto anomaly?

[Dave F.]

On 18/09/2014 19:51, colliar wrote:
> Am 18.09.2014 00:18, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>>
>>> Il giorno 17/set/2014, alle ore 22:32, "Dave F." <davefox at madasafish.com> ha scritto:
>>>
>>> As an example: If it has a name you'd have two objects of that name, when in fact there's only one. If someone wanted to find out how many named wood there are in a city it would return inaccurate data.
>>
>> I agree with this, that's why IMO we should have 2 distinct kind of properties (and maybe objects), one kind for name (and type of thing) and one kind for descriptions of subobjects like an area where trees grows. inside a named forest you might have lots of areas without actual trees. Eg natural=wood and name=* vs. landcover=trees
> No, the name problem is simply solved with a multipolygon or site
> relation if needed. This way we still have one single object.

Does that get classed as a "relations are not a collection of objects" 
problem?
I'm playing devil's advocate here, personally I'm still unsure peoples 
objections to collections in relations are.


>
> It is still a forest even if there are no trees atm. Please use
> landcover=* to add this information. Or exclude the area if permanent.
>
> One more option would be to use place=locality or even place=forest with
> the name
>
> cu colliar
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20140918/6a04c0e2/attachment-0001.html>