Then I guess the correct solution would be to not "stick" the amenity to the building but to a new relation whose only member will be the building itself.
One further benefit is that if the amenity goes you can delete the relation without disturbing the building... Sergio On 2019-02-16 23:49, Anton Klim wrote: > Like in the thread opening email, where there is an amenity that occupies the > whole building, we put amenity tags on the outline. > I generally support adding more granularity to start_date, but feel like > start_date:* might fit better than *:start_date. > > Anton Klim > >> 16 февр. 2019 г., в 21:40, Sergio Manzi <s...@smz.it> написал(а): >> >> Stephan, can you point to any such object in OSM where you find that >> ambiguity? >> >> I have the feeling that we could possibly discover a violation of the "One >> feature, one OSM element" principle [1] in there... >> >> Sergio >> >> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element >> >> >>> On 2019-02-16 22:01, Stephan Bösch-Plepelits wrote: >>> My suggestion was to use a prefix "building:" if the start_date of the >>> building differs from the start_date of the amenity. It is not very common >>> though right now, with only 163 uses. Only 9 have both start_date and >>> building:start_date. >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
