Yves via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > 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.
Yes, let me clarify this with an example: E.g. This site has a working site relation (without tourism=camp_site removed): https://opencampingmap.org/#15/49.0815/7.9123/1/1/bef/node/3824691120 The camp_site node is https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3824691120 Site relation is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13009876 While it is currently tagged toilets=yes and openfire=yes this is not mandatory because evaluating the corresponding site relation will give us a toilet and a fireplace. So what I do with site relations here is basically the same I do with camp_site areas. With areas I check if any supported object is inside the area (spatial join) and assume that this is a feature of this particular camp_site. With site-relations this is even easier as I can consider all objects related to the site a feature of the camp-site in the relation. I think this is elegant especially in comparison to the alternatives suggested here like expanding the campsite polygon into areas open to the general public like reception desks, restaurants or even toilets also used by other facilities like sport-centers. Last but not least, what I do consider bad practise and show them as a bug in my map is stuff like this: * More than one camp_site object added to a site relation * Using site-relations in cases a multipolygon is sufficient * Camp-sites that contain others (not part of this discussion) Regards Sven -- "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" (Franklin D. Roosevelt) /me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
