Re: [Tagging] Relation for multi-part artworks

2020-02-06 Thread Andy Mabbett 
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 12:20, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>
> I hope to find consensus for how to tag artworks with multiple parts,
> as a relation.

> We could use relation_type:set (which I used for the Moonstones) or
> define a new relation_type:artwork

To further complicate matters I have had an off-list email, suggesting
the use of:

   https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Cluster

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Relation for multi-part artworks

2020-02-06 Thread Jez Nicholson 
I would quite happily call a collection of statues near to each other an
"artistic site", similar to a wind farm being a collection of turbines

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 12:49 PM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 12:41, marc marc  wrote:
> >
> > Le 06.02.20 à 13:20, Andy Mabbett a écrit :
> > > We could use relation_type:set
> >
> > why not using relation type=site that already exist ?
>
> Because they are not a "site".
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Relation for multi-part artworks

2020-02-06 Thread Andy Mabbett 
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 12:41, marc marc  wrote:
>
> Le 06.02.20 à 13:20, Andy Mabbett a écrit :
> > We could use relation_type:set
>
> why not using relation type=site that already exist ?

Because they are not a "site".

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Relation for multi-part artworks

2020-02-06 Thread marc marc 
Le 06.02.20 à 13:20, Andy Mabbett a écrit :
> We could use relation_type:set

why not using relation type=site that already exist ?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Relation for multi-part artworks

2020-02-06 Thread Andy Mabbett 
I hope to find consensus for how to tag artworks with multiple parts,
as a relation. Here are some examples:

Nine 'Moonstones', including:

   https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2501118658
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2501118659
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2501118660
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2501127353

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Society_Moonstones

Set of three murals at Handsworth, Birmingham:

   https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7112445731
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7112445732
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7112445733

Set of statues in Porto:

   https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2996821310

   
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People_looking_the_sky_%28Faro_district%29.JPG

We could use relation_type:set (which I used for the Moonstones) or
define a new relation_type:artwork

Thoughts?

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging