Tobias and Eugene, I understand your point, so I've added a few sentences to the proposal [1] about using simpler tools when appropriate.
-Josh [1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site#Proposal On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Tobias Knerr <o...@tobias-knerr.de> wrote: > Josh Doe wrote: >> The Relation:type=site proposal [1] has been around for over two >> years, and I think it is a very useful relation, so I'd like to help >> it get approved. >> [...] >> I've been using this relation for schools and playgrounds, >> and I believe it is a needed addition to our tagging arsenal. > > It might be useful in some cases, but it shouldn't be overused. If the > site is adequately described by a polygon, it can and imo should be > mapped as an area with the appropriate tags. > > For example, a school that occupies one site with some buildings, sport > facilities ... can trivially be mapped as an area with amenity=school > and other tags (such as name) referring to the entire site, with > separate elements for the buildings contained within. > > A site relation wouldn't add any information that cannot be determined > by an is-in-polygon test, a well-explored algorithmic task. > > I can support the proposal if (and only if) it is made clear that site > relations are only to be used where simpler tools aren't sufficient. > > Tobias Knerr > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
