2011/12/6 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> > 2011/12/5 Jo <winfi...@gmail.com>: > > 2011/12/5 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> > >> 7) Instead of "hotel:garden = yes" it might be more useful to > >> actually draw the garden (leisure=garden, garden:style=, > >> garden:type=hotel or similar) > > > And then group them all together with a site relation? > > > I'd use a polygon (amenity=hotel, etc.) for the whole complex, this > can be easily evaluated, (what nobody does so far with site relations, > AFAIK) >
I get complaints if I start using polygons that way... > > > >> > hotel:parking = yes;Ladeuze > >> you should include the parking polygon/node in the hotel polygon, so > >> this tag is not needed (IMHO) > > > This underground parking lot is 500m away though. > > > you could use a multipolygon relation for the hotel (instead of the > polygon) and have the parking with the role outer attached to this > relation. > The parking lot in Leuven is a public one, not exclusive for the hotel. I changed many tags on the 2 existing hotels, according to the new insights (removed many as well), and I added another hotel, which is more like a spa, so it has pools and saunas and whirlpools on-site: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10046835 Jo
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
