On 08.08.2013 01:24, Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Friedrich Volkmann<b...@volki.at> wrote:
It should rather be a type=collection relation.
I really hate "type=collection". One of the worst idea in OSM. All
relations are collections.
At least it is semantically correct, while type=site relations are often
used for features on multiple sites.
You can think of type=collection as an abbreviation of
type=bare_and_general_collection. All other relations have special members
(e.g. inner/outer in multipolygons) or at least special meanings (type=route).
type=cluster has also been suggested. I would be ok with it, but it would
require a proposal to make it more popular.
--
Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
