This my pet use case for a site relation: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3161183#map=7/46.532/6.097
I'm not confortable to draw polygons around the ski pistes to then build a landuse=winter_sport multipolygon. Given the wildlife conservation rules in the area, I also doubt I can include the forest between pistes. Yves Le 2 octobre 2018 17:07:11 GMT+02:00, Mateusz Konieczny <[email protected]> a écrit : >2. Październik 2018 12:36 od [email protected] ><mailto:[email protected]>: > > >> Le 02. 10. 18 à 11:46, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit : >> > Can you link this case if that is more complicated? >> it's a fictional example. ok not the better one. >> >> take again the example you cut in the initial message: >> a wind turbin site with a few turbines represented by a few nodes >> I hope your solution is not to make a way for each wind turbine >> to be able to add in into a multipolygon to describe the site. >> it would not make much sense to make a polygon encompassing all >objects >> between the wind turbines and describe that the whole thing is a wind >site > > > > > I agree that for wind turbines multipolygon may not be feasible. > > > > >So far it is the only known to me case where site relation maybe is >useful > >(I have no experience with features like wind turbine farms so it is >hard > >for me to judge this case - that is why I skipped it).
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
