Am 03.02.2011 20:01, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: > 2011/2/2 Tobias Knerr <o...@tobias-knerr.de>: >> 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. > > > +1 > >> 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. > > > +1
please change the example on the proposal page, because a site-relation is not need for this case >> A site relation wouldn't add any information that cannot be determined >> by an is-in-polygon test, a well-explored algorithmic task. > > ... > > I was recently mapping an archaeological site, where part of it was > fenced and required a fee. Other parts were located around, but not > all of them adjacent (some had fields between them and the "main" > site). I created 3 site relations: one for the part that was fenced > and required a fee, one for the rest and one to combine the 2 site > relations. maybe we can use this as example on the poposal page. Thanks fly _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
