2016-06-30 10:23 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: > Are you suggesting that a shop object which is coterminous with a building > outline should get its own polygon, sharing nodes between the two?
you could do it like this, but I'd rather use a multipolygon relation to avoid overlapping ways. Some people use nodes inside the building polygon, you can do this, but you loose the information of spatial extent. > Instead of disambiguating the tags with a prefix/suffix like shop:ref and > building:ref? yes, rather than these "disambiguations" you can use standard tags if you have everything structured well on a geometrical and logical level. The need for these "disambiguations" already demonstrates there is something wrong somewhere (IMHO). Similarly, we don't need bridge_name or bridge_ref any more, since we started to have actual bridges (man_made=bridge) and not just indirect bridges (by stating something is on a bridge). > It is certainly an approach which has merit, but so do other approaches > which are currently more widely used, such as tags with a prefix/suffix or > mapping the "shop" to a node within the building polygon. Yes, the node within the polygon is likely more used than (exactly) overlapping polygons and multipolygon relations (have never counted this, just a guess). I don't think that prefixes and suffixes are more frequently used, but it is really difficult to tell precisely. Actually everything could be expressed with prefixes and suffixes, so if you compare "everything" to the cases with a suffix/prefix, they are clearly a small minority ;-) Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
