A site relation could be appropriate to describe that they are all related to the mine but don't fit inside of a single polygon.
If the entire community (mine + housing + airport) is all part of the mine I would map it as place=hamlet, name=such and such mine. In that case draw the place polygon around everything and the site relation is optional. Place polygons are (almost) always preferred to place nodes, because then you don't have to guess what's inside of them. My inclination on the mine facilities would be: The actual pit & surroundings are landuse=quarry, the proccessing facilities are landuse=industrial + individual buildings. Do the buildings have names beyond their purpose? If not just naming them is probably sufficient. On Feb 5, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Johan Jönsson wrote: > Elizabeth Dodd <edodd@...> writes: > >> >>> 2011/2/5 Elizabeth Dodd <edodd <at> billiau.net>: >>>> I'm tracing a big open cast mine ... >> >> the residential village and the airstrip are part of the mining site >> from the social and economic points of view - single owner, single >> purpose >> the 132km of haul road also belongs in the economic view of the mining >> site, but would not be appropriate in a polygon, but could be added to >> a relation, which was why I was suggesting relation >> > > Sounds like a relation to me. > I don´t know how we map normal civic communities, I guess only by anode and > then > you have to figure out what belongs there according to proximity. > > Good luck! > /Johan Jönsson > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
