Yep, this is how I understood that guideline to be. So if you have a polygon where there was just a node before representing the same thing, you're free to delete the node in favor of the polygon assuming no data (i.e., tag info) is lost.
Here's what the wiki says [1] One feature, one OSM-object > > Don't place nodes in (equally labelled) areas just to see some icon appear > on the map. The renderers will display icons on areas as well and there's no > need to have every parking-lot, soccer-ground etc. twice in the database. > [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#One_feature.2C_one_OSM-object I don't think this means that you're not supposed to reuse the same OSM object to represent different things. On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Nathan Edgars II <[email protected]>wrote: > I think "one feature, one object" is usually used in the other > direction: you don't tag the boundary name=x and also put it in a > boundary relation with name=x. You don't put a fast_food node in the > middle of a building that only holds the fast food place; you put the > fast_food tags on the building (or, even better, the parcel of land > owned by the company, which includes the parking lot). Having a > boundary relation and a node at the city center violates this > guideline, but is a valid exception because the node carries other > information about where the city center is. > > As for the specific question, I would say that if the boundary is > defined by the natural feature, it's probably OK to use one way. For > example, http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/78384443 is legally > defined as "...to the water's edge of Little Lake Conway; thence run > southeasterly along said waters edge to a point of intersection..." > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
