Sylvain,
I have not followed the discussion but there is no doubt in my mind
that:
* a multipolygon may have 0 or more inner rings;
* a multipolygon must have one or more outer rings;
* any inner ring can consist of any number of ways;
* any outer ring can consist of any number of ways.
Th
> Let me first point out that these edits don't affect the definition of
> the multipolygon relation per se.
> No relation would become "invalid", so
> this doesn't break anything.
To be honnest, by what I read of the change, it wasn't so obvious.
When reading :
"Use multipolygons only if there
On 07.06.2012 17:33, sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote:
> A recent proposal (and change after that) on the wiki has been made, which
> roughly sums up to : "relations type=multipolygon's members should only be
> closed ways, not sums of ways making closed rings, unless the way is too big
> that it wou
Hi,
A recent proposal (and change after that) on the wiki has been made, which
roughly sums up to : "relations type=multipolygon's members should only be
closed ways, not sums of ways making closed rings, unless the way is too big
that it would be refused by the API"
Full discussion is here :
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> My plea is to avoid these links to external ressources and to define
> all necessary settings in our own wiki.
+1
Perhaps keep the link for further information (for what it is, an
external link) but keep at least the main definition in
For some tag definitions in the OSM wiki there are cross links to
wikipedia. I think that this is problematic for at least these
reasons:
1. Wikipedia articles are permanently changed. Does this imply that
also our tag definition changes? This could be fixed by linking to
distinct versions of WP a
