2018-09-14 11:49 GMT+02:00 Lionel Giard <lionel.gi...@gmail.com>: > But i recognize that i have probably over-extended the definition with its > use for the "simple" parking. Do you think i should remove the relation for > the 'simple' parking that are "only on the surface" and all contained into > the amenity=parking polygon ? >
if you can express everything you want with a polygon, you should not use a site relation, IMHO. > > For multi-site parking (like for mall or large venue place where parking > can be separated by highways, buildings, ...), i still see it as a good use > as it avoid the duplication of most tags (opening_hours...) and indicate > that they are all the parking for that particular place (without relying on > the name or something like that). > you can also in this case (provided the parkings are not mapped as nodes) do it with a multipolygon-relation. Here is an example for a site with a parking where you can't use a multipolygon (as the shop is a node), ignore the "role" name, I just made it up and it is not standard, and there are no other tags on the site for the moment. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7040820 Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
