In my use of the site relation, i try to add a polygon to indicate the perimeter (when possible) like in the proposal of the site relation ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site) and i use the "amenity=parking" polygon for the site=parking. And then i add everything that is inside the "site perimeter" like parking_space, services roads and parking_aisle, vending machine, parking_entrance (if underground), ...
For underground parking, i tend to only put amenity=parking on the site relation and don't draw a polygon (except when it match exactly a building outline, then i use it as perimeter). Le mar. 11 sept. 2018 à 21:00, OSMDoudou < [email protected]> a écrit : > Hello, > > > > When micro-mapping parkings, amenity=parking_space are to be brought into > a relation (type=site and site=parking). [1] > > > > But I find it strange the "outer" object (i.e. amenity=parking) doesn't > need to be added to the relation. > > > > I would have expected something like inner / outer in multipolygon > relations to indicate to which parking the paking space belongs. [2] > > > > Any thoughts ? > > > > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space > > [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
