I think it is also used with historic, not only heritage, e.g. [1]
Thus there are at most ca. 3800 more.[2]
regards
m.
[1]
http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/translate/nl/index-nl.html?zoom=17=50.66496=7.24869=BTFFFTT=r3580734
[2]
The relation type=site proposal [1] has been around for seven years
now. Milliams is the original creator of the draft while Joshdoe
cleaned up the proposal page, added some to the discussion and also
sent out an RFC in 2011 [2].
The relation has a bit of troubled history since the original idea
Am 03.02.2011 20:01, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
2011/2/2 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de:
It might be useful in some cases, but it shouldn't be overused. If the
site is adequately described by a polygon, it can and imo should be
mapped as an area with the appropriate tags.
+1
For
Tobias and Eugene,
I understand your point, so I've added a few sentences to the
proposal [1] about using simpler tools when appropriate.
-Josh
[1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site#Proposal
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
2011/2/2 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de:
It might be useful in some cases, but it shouldn't be overused. If the
site is adequately described by a polygon, it can and imo should be
mapped as an area with the appropriate tags.
+1
For example, a school that occupies one site with some
you deleted one of the more important parts of this relation IMHO: the
label-node which would serve as a suggested label placement. I made
some of these relations and I was never sure, which objects I should
put into the relation (as for instance the spatial configuration
already says that
See comments inline below:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:29 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
you deleted one of the more important parts of this relation IMHO: the
label-node which would serve as a suggested label placement.
Okay, I added this one back, though I'm not fond of
Josh Doe wrote:
The Relation:type=site proposal [1] has been around for over two
years, and I think it is a very useful relation, so I'd like to help
it get approved.
[...]
I've been using this relation for schools and playgrounds,
and I believe it is a needed addition to our tagging
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:58 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
I can support the proposal if (and only if) it is made clear that site
relations are only to be used where simpler tools aren't sufficient.
+1
___
Tagging mailing list
