Site relations are often used to models thing that aren't spatially joined, like windfarms, universities... I can easily imagine it's reasonable to use them for campings in some corner cases where a single area doesn't work.
Yves Le 10 novembre 2022 12:11:44 GMT+01:00, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> a écrit : >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
