Re: [Tagging] site relation definition

2020-06-17 Thread Tobias Knerr
On 17.06.20 12:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Can we remove the "man_made" requirement? I'm ok with removing the requirement for objects to be man-made. I only added this aspect back in because it had been silently lost during the transition from the proposal page to the Relation:site page a

Re: [Tagging] site relation definition

2020-06-17 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
Are there any examples of a type=site relation used with a natural=* feature tag where this is appropriate? In the list of combinations natural=* is not shown (less than 1000 uses): https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/type=site#combinations About 50% of current site relations are from an

Re: [Tagging] site relation definition

2020-06-17 Thread Yves
Yes, restricting to 'man-made' objects doesn't make sense. This relation type is particularly unloved, yet it is not by restricting its definition in the wiki to something less that it is 'in use' for that it will automatically disappear. Yves ___

[Tagging] site relation definition

2020-06-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I just noticed that a year ago someone well meaning has significantly changed the site relation definition, by introducing the requirement for the site to be "man_made": https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relation%3Asite=revision=1850677=1850254 According to the comment, this is