> > why not a multipolygon? I agree that you don’t need additional tags for a > group relation, just type=group, a name and the members, but for a site you > would need something that describes the site, a tag for a group of water > areas, so as long as all the members are areas (or parts), a multipolygon > would be better. >
When the lakes themselves are complex multipolygons with many islands, repeating that data for the group is likely to be a maintenance nightmare. (I know this from curating boundary=protected_area relations that include partial shorelines on such lakes. It's especially fun when the boundary splits islands.) >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
