On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 21:16, Tod Fitch <t...@fitchdesign.com> wrote: > > I had not noticed the existence of the group relation before. Seems to me > that it and the controversial site relation have some overlap. For the > examples I can think of where I think the site relation works it seems like > the group relation would also work. So, at present and lacking > counter-examples, it seems to me that one of these two relations should go > away.
There is quite some difference between the suggested group relation and a site relation: A site relation is an own feature that consists of several other features. (For example, a wind farm cannot be mapped as a power plant area, but it can be mapped as a power plant site relation with multiple wind turbines as members.[1]) [1]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3792332 In contrast, a group relation isn't a separate feature, but just a name; the feature is already defined for its members. (Like in our example the two ponds 'Small Pond' and 'Big Pond' that together are called 'Groble'.) This is also why a site (or multipolygon) relation wouldn't work in our example. Regards Markus _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
