https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Recreational_route_relation_roles
Voting was open from 2020-06-03 through 2020-06-16. The proposal was
*approved* with 36 votes for, 1 vote against and 1 abstention.
Thanks to everyone who voted and/or participated in the discussion.
Special
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
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
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 ___
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
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
