Josh Doe wrote: > The Relation:type=site proposal [1] has been around for over two > years, and I think it is a very useful relation, so I'd like to help > it get approved. > [...] > I've been using this relation for schools and playgrounds, > and I believe it is a needed addition to our tagging arsenal.
It might be useful in some cases, but it shouldn't be overused. If the site is adequately described by a polygon, it can and imo should be mapped as an area with the appropriate tags. For example, a school that occupies one site with some buildings, sport facilities ... can trivially be mapped as an area with amenity=school and other tags (such as name) referring to the entire site, with separate elements for the buildings contained within. A site relation wouldn't add any information that cannot be determined by an is-in-polygon test, a well-explored algorithmic task. I can support the proposal if (and only if) it is made clear that site relations are only to be used where simpler tools aren't sufficient. Tobias Knerr _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
