Instead of type=site + tourism=camp_site, type=site + site=camp_site would be less prone to objections, maybe.
Regards, Yves Le 9 novembre 2022 22:00:23 GMT+01:00, Sven Geggus <li...@fuchsschwanzdomain.de> a écrit : >Hello, > >about a year ago I implemented support for site relations in OpenCampingMap. > >My announcement from back then is at: >https://blog.geggus.net/2021/09/announcing-support-for-site-relations-in-opencampingmap/ > >Now a recent changeset discussion is questioning my whole approach because it >arguably violates the "One feature, one OSM element principle": > >https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/126035627 > >Ignoring the principle (which is not absolute anyway) in this case and >adding a relation of type=site + tourism=camp_site containing the actual >tourism=camp_site object as a member does solve the problem thus I would go >for doing just this as I did a year ago. > >Obviously others seem to differ here. > >Currently the above changeset breaks my map regarding those campsites where >the tourism=camp_site tag has been removed from the site relation. > >External features are no longer shown :( > >So how to resolve this problem? > >campsites with external features (e.g. sanitary facilities used by a >campsite and a sport-center) do exist in the wild and they usually do also >have on-the-ground objects (way, node, polygon-relation) where no other tag >than tourism=camp_site does make sense. > >What do you think? > >Sven > >_______________________________________________ >Tagging mailing list >Tagging@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
