Hi!
Looks fine, but why do we need a relation for single-site facilities
(examples Fukushima and Themis)? A site-relation is usually only necessary
if not all features of the "site" are within one closed area, i.e. they
are dispersed. I would strongly recommend keeping it this way.
best regards,
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> A site-relation is usually only necessary if not all features of the
> "site" are within one closed area, i.e. they are dispersed. I would
> strongly recommend keeping it this way.
>
>
+1
Pieren
Thanks François for your great work.
One thing: in "PV solar panel" example, you should change
generator:type=solar_panel to generator:type=solar_photovoltaic _panel, for
consistency with the rest of the proposal.
+1 for relations: as written in the proposal, "this advanced tagging is
optional, it
Hi Martin, Pieren,
Looks fine, but why do we need a relation for single-site facilities
> (examples Fukushima and Themis)? A site-relation is usually only necessary
> if not all features of the "site" are within one closed area, i.e. they
> are dispersed. I would strongly recommend keeping it thi
Hi!
2013/4/6 François Lacombe
> Looks fine, but why do we need a relation for single-site facilities
>> (examples Fukushima and Themis)? A site-relation is usually only necessary
>> if not all features of the "site" are within one closed area, i.e. they
>> are dispersed. I would strongly recomm
