sent from a phone
> On 3 Mar 2017, at 23:04, Christian Müller <cmu...@gmx.de> wrote: > > It may be redundant, but it's far from useless. it may seem redundant, and if you assume construction sites to be unique for a certain piece of land you would be right, but there are exceptions. There are really buildings on top of other buildings. Here's an example: http://www.detail.de/inspiration/ein-parasit-fuer-rotterdam-106658.html Another example where this is relevant are megastructures which offer individual (stacked) sites within their structure. A proposal for something like this was presented by OMA in 1991 at the masterplan competition for potsdamer platz, Berlin. Other examples are underground structures (e.g. train stations) with different buildings built on top. In theory, as these cases exist, you do need to couple building parts explicitly every time and cannot rely purely on spatial association. In practice, these cases might be so rare that you could decide to ignore them. So no, the building relations to group building:parts are not strictly redundant, but the reason they are "needed" are (currently) exceptional situations. Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
