On 08.08.2013 19:39, Yuri D'Elia wrote:
At least it is semantically correct, while type=site relations are often
used for features on multiple sites.
[...]
What about type=site with the appropriate natural tag?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site
See my paragraph that I quoted on top. Now in more detail: The proposal says:
"If all the elements contained within an area (the perimeter) belong to the
site, and no elements of the site exist outside the area, then it is
inappropriate to use this relation."
That means that the relation should only be used for elements in differing
locations, i.e. NOT on one site. It is absurd to call that a "site" relation.
I also dislike the suggested special member roles: The positioning of the
label depends on the font size, the free space, the map section and zoom
level etc. and should therefore be determined by the renderer. The perimeter
is implied by the other members. The entrance is implied by the entrance=*
node(s) on the perimeter.
All in all, I see nothing good in the type=site proposal.
I was just looking at the wiki, and type=collection seems to be pretty
frowned upon.
I don't know about the frowning. If you just look at pros and cons, you will
prefer type=collection over type=site.
--
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
