On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 11:53:52PM +0100, Sergio Manzi wrote: > 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. > Yeah, that was the other solution I thought of.
In the particular case which I was describing in the opening mail https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1937535 the building is already a multipolygon relation. Do you think a relation with a multipolygon relation as member would work? Or would it be better to duplicate the multipolygon relation? Logically I would prefer the first solution, but I have doubts on the technical support. greetings, Stephan -- Seid unbequem, seid Sand, nicht Öl im Getriebe der Welt! - Günther Eich ,----------------------------------------------------------------------. | Stephan Bösch-Plepelits ❤ code ❤ urbanism ❤ free software ❤ cycling | | Projects: | | > OpenStreetMap: openstreetbrowser.org > openstreetmap.at | | > Urbanism: Radlobby Wien | | Contact: | | > Mail: sk...@xover.mud.at > Blog: plepe.at > Code: github.com/plepe | | > Twitter: twitter.com/plepe > Jabber: sk...@jabber.at | | > Mastodon: @pl...@en.osm.town | `----------------------------------------------------------------------' _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
