2. Oct 2018 19:27 by ricoz....@gmail.com <mailto:ricoz....@gmail.com>: > On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 05:01:17PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> > I can give you a case that is more complicated. The University of >> > Edinburgh. As well as a main> campus, and a subsidiary mini-campus, it >> > has individual buildings scattered all around the city.> It could be >> > mapped as a multipolygon but it would be a lot of work. Imagine using a >> > multipolygon> natural=wood to handle many individual, widely-spaced trees >> > by poking lots ofi rregular, large holes> in it where trees aren't. >> > See > >> https://www.ed.ac.uk/maps/maps <https://www.ed.ac.uk/maps/maps>>> >> > <>> https://www.ed.ac.uk/maps/maps <https://www.ed.ac.uk/maps/maps>>> >> >> > And note that what you get there is the first of five tabs> covering >> > different agglomerations of buildings. >> > >> > I think the only feasible way of handling this would be a site relation. >> > Maybe you can think of a better> way of handling it. >> >> >> >> >> Why selecting buildings and tagging them to site relation is easier than >> selecting building and adding them to a multipolygon realation? > > looks like abuse of multipolygon relation to me. > why abuse? Sole reason for multipolygon relations is to tag disjointed areas or areas with holes in them.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
