sent from a phone
> On 13. Jul 2020, at 19:04, Volker Schmidt <vosc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Reading the wiki versions, I would say the "site" relation is extremely > vaguely defined. > > I would think we are free to make it something useful. I agree > > At the risk of repeating myself, I believe there is a need for something > like the site relation for a whole array of more or less widely scattered > objects that belong together. Just a few: > non-campus universities, research institutions, schools > the offices of public institutions (city, regional, country governments, the > European Union institutions) > archaeological sites (aqueducts, Hadrian's Wall, the Limes in Germany, the > Great Wall of China, The Iron Curtain, city walls, former Railways, former > canals and other waterways, former underground mines, ...) > power plants (hydro-electric, wind power, ...) > active mines > distributed museums actually all of these could be „grouped“ with tags alone, e.g distributed museums could have an identifying „network“ tag (or sth similar). For power plants a site might be appropriate, if an area does not do it and you don’t want to rely on only tags. In theory objects like the Great Wall in China can and should be modeled as areas, although they seem to be linear in nature, they are also thick enough to „require“ an area representation in order to be well mapped in the scale of OpenStreetMap (you can walk on it). In practice we would also want a way to have preliminary mapping as a line, and mixed geometry relations. A multipolygon relation for all parts of the great wall would likely be broken every day, and would be over the member limits for relations. Would those that are in favour of using a site relation for a linear, circular, interrupted structure, 19km long and some meters wide, also see it as a good relation type for the Chinese Great Wall? Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
