Yes, using site relation in addition to actual object breaks this rule and it is undesirable (and site relations in general are problematic).
It would be also problem with type=site site=camp_sites and similar trying to hide duplication. Is there some reason why this camp sites cannot be mapped as areas if someone is doing such detailed mapping? or map operator of a toilet or extra features? Nov 9, 2022, 22:00 by li...@fuchsschwanzdomain.de: > 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
