On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 04:56:13PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2016-08-28 15:23 GMT+02:00 Richard <ricoz....@gmail.com>: > > > As the cave may have other cave-wide attributes there may be other reasons > > to have a relation for it. > > > > > > no, you just need an object for the cave, and with natural=cave you will > have this object (could be a node or a way, clearly a way is nicer because > of shape, extent, etc.).
are you saying we should use "cave:ref" just to avoid the use of a relation? Why? Is there a new trend to avoid relations at all cost? I would be delighted if we could do that with landcover multipolygons.. and maybe we should? Btw nodes of type natural=cave is kapu because the database has too many entries such entries which are erroneous (following the ancient rejected proposal) for what should be natural=cave_entry. Richard _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging