Re: [Tagging] site relation definition

[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 day prior,
which I felt wasn't ok – this is a significant change that should be
done on its own, not as part of an unrelated rewrite where it's easily
missed. But I do not actually have any personal preference on this
matter one way or the other.

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

Re: [Tagging] site relation definition

[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 import, and are combined
with site=geodesic +
source=©IGN␣2010␣dans␣le␣cadre␣de␣la␣cartographie␣réglem + network=NTF-4 or
NTF-5

Another 28% are site=stop_area + source
=naptan_import
 +

The most common tags that specify a feature type are amenity=* (3 869
uses), power=* (2886 uses), heritage=* and historic=* (1358 uses).

 These are all man-made features.


On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:51 AM Yves  wrote:

> 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 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] site relation definition

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

[Tagging] site relation definition

[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&type=revision&diff=1850677&oldid=1850254

According to the comment, this is based on the original proposal (dating
probably 10 years back).
IMHO it does not make sense to change the definition after so many years,
and with already so many objects tagged.

Can we remove the "man_made" requirement?

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting result - Recreational Route Relation Roles

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jun 17, 2020, 08:13 by pelder...@gmail.com:

> Since it was neither key, value, nor relation, I am not sure if a new page 
> has to be created, or maybe just do a textual clean-up and add links to 
> relevant feature pages?
>
In theory someone may create pages/redirects for roles like
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Role:inner disambig page exists.

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