On 08/08/2013 08:56 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > 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. >
What about type=site with the appropriate natural tag? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site I was just looking at the wiki, and type=collection seems to be pretty frowned upon. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
