> Gesendet: Samstag, 04. März 2017 um 21:21 Uhr > Von: "Tobias Knerr" <[email protected]> > An: [email protected] > Betreff: Re: [Tagging] how to map simple buildings > > And probably a few more. None of these requires relations.
I'm sure there is a lot of stuff in OSM where you could trade code against a relation. But most of the time it introduces dependencies: on caching, on people that still understand what they did, etc. pp. Explicit definition can, even when they are strictly redundant, stabilize otherwise fragile data that is prone to various errors. > > Yet they may ease maintenance > > work for oneself and other mappers, since they usually convey an overview > > of all the parts present. But of course it depends on mapping workflow if > > this is true to a particular mapper. > > While there are mappers who love using relations as part of their > workflow, the relatively low usage numbers of the building relation (and > other optional relations) strongly suggest that this preference is not > shared by the majority of mappers. You already had made a clear point of your aversion to them in your last mail, thanks. But I doubt you can speak for the majority of mappers or deduct a general behavior in this early stage for a method of mapping that's still spreading and open for discussion. Greetings _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
