Re: [Tagging] do aerodromes need a relation?

> About your proposed use of a relation with a label as node: This is > strongly opposed by map style editors and the "label" role was removed > by me from the (proposed) site relation because of this. > I was unaware of this. Thanks for clearing that up. Can you refer me to the arguments for

Re: [Tagging] do aerodromes need a relation?

Often aerodrome as areas get added without removing the older node. IMHO an aerodrome as area/multipolygon is a more detailed way of tagging an aerodrome. With the rule "one feature = one OSM element" either the node or the area should be deleted. About your proposed use of a relation with a

Re: [Tagging] do aerodromes need a relation?

On Friday 08 April 2016, joost schouppe wrote: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370594935 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/26608229 > > The wiki for aerodromes suggests looking at the mapping of Munich > airport. It also has a node and a way that live in separate worlds. > Shouldn't most

Re: [Tagging] do aerodromes need a relation?

I have no idea, but the way should not include the "Delhaize" supermarket, the Shell station and probably most other buildings under Brucargo. They are not part of the airport. m. On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 1:06 PM, joost schouppe wrote: > Hi, > > Currently, the main