on 28.01.2014 12:28, Janko Mihelić wrote:
because it's not a common problem.
???
there are e.g. a lot of shopping centers out there...
Best regards,
Michael.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinf
2014-01-28 Ronnie Soak
>
> Of course this comes with all the downsides of relations (maintainability
> by newbies, pickup by renderers, routing, search..)
> but still seems to be the most correct solution.
>
I think renderers, routers and other data consumers have shown themselves
to use the mul
It seems to be the most correct solution and the "cost" of relations is
not that relevant as it's an easy multipolygon and this kind of
multipolygons are quite good supported by most editors (iD, josm) and
software.
Perhaps we get a proper area type in future, which should IMHO at least
cover this
2014/1/28 Peter Wendorff
>
> one building (b1) and the outer space (s) are used by a kindergarten,
> the second building (b2) and the outer space (s) are used by a primary
> school.
>
> Our proposal for the tagging was:
> 1) use a multipolygon with outer s and inner (b1) and tag it as primary
> s
Hi Ronnie,
recall the task:
there is an area with a fence.
inside that fence there are two buildings.
one building (b1) and the outer space (s) are used by a kindergarten,
the second building (b2) and the outer space (s) are used by a primary
school.
Our proposal for the tagging was:
1) use a mul
2014/1/28 Peter Wendorff
> Hi Ronnia,
> as the use case was an outer area shared by two amenities in different
> building, it's a multipolygon with one outer and one inner member, and
> that should be fairly common around the world, as it's the most simple
> case for an osm multipolygon, right?
Hi Ronnia,
as the use case was an outer area shared by two amenities in different
building, it's a multipolygon with one outer and one inner member, and
that should be fairly common around the world, as it's the most simple
case for an osm multipolygon, right?
regards
Peter
Am 28.01.2014 12:20,
It's not a common solution because it's not a common problem. I think it's
better than site because it only uses the geometry of the area, and site
takes into account the tags on the area. So if you put a landuse=* and
barrier=fence, site says "this school consists of a fence and a landuse",
and mu
2014/1/28 Janko Mihelić
> I would make two multipolygon relations, not site, and put no tags on the
> area.
>
>
Could you explain why?
A multipoligon relation with just one outer member
is not common practice (at least not here in my region.)
Regards,
Chaos
_
2014/1/28 Janko Mihelić
> I would make two multipolygon relations, not site, and put no tags on the
> area.
>
>
Could you explain why?
A multipoligon relation with just one outer member
is not common practice (at least not here in my region.)
Regards,
Chaos
_
I would make two multipolygon relations, not site, and put no tags on the
area.
2014-01-28 Ronnie Soak
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to get some opinions on a mapping/tagging problem I have here.
>
> Usually I would tag an amenity (inside a building) that is enclosed by an
> area that is clearly part
> of
Hi,
I'd like to get some opinions on a mapping/tagging problem I have here.
Usually I would tag an amenity (inside a building) that is enclosed by an
area that is clearly part
of the amenity (like playgrounds around a kindergarten, outdoor area of a
botanical garden) *not* on the building (or eve
12 matches
Mail list logo
