Thanks. I added it to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site#Examples
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site#Examples>
7. Oct 2018 17:23 by [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>:
> The relation is > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2721886
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2721886>
> The historic place link only works if you manually select a base map
> from the menu.
>
> regards
>
> m.
> On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 2:47 PM Mateusz Konieczny
> <> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote:
>>
>> I found (again) >>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site>
>> and I am trying to improve it.
>>
>> "multiple cave entrances of a single cave" sounds like a good example of a
>> valid use
>> but >>
>> http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/translate/en/index-en.html?zoom=16&lat=50.67804&lon=7.22231&layers=B0000FT&detail=3
>>
>> <http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/translate/en/index-en.html?zoom=16&lat=50.67804&lon=7.22231&layers=B0000FT&detail=3>>>
>> is not loading properly for me.
>>
>> Can you link directly OSM relation of this object?
>>
>> 2. Oct 2018 18:01 by >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>
>> :
>>
>> This relation combines a number of cave entrances the belong to the
>> same system that is apparantly protected:
>> http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/translate/en/index-en.html?zoom=16&lat=50.67804&lon=7.22231&layers=B0000FT&detail=3
>>
>> <http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/translate/en/index-en.html?zoom=16&lat=50.67804&lon=7.22231&layers=B0000FT&detail=3>
>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:08 PM Mateusz Konieczny
>> <>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
