sent from a phone
> On 14. Apr 2019, at 08:37, Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> wrote: > > This makes even less sense and is even clumsier, especially for those > using iD if memory serves correctly. I did not experience problems with id in such cases, but I also would not let the mapping concepts be lead by a single editing software. Editors can always be updated if they cannot cope with certain concepts, while there is no easy fix for ambiguous map data. > Single-member multipolygons are > also a clear misuse of the multipolygon relation; the prefix "multi" > means more than one. it is not a misuse, the minimum requirements for multipolygon members is one outer way, at most it is an unfortunate name for the kind of relation. > If, for some reason, the fence or the park boundary > differ, I can see making one or both a multipolygon, but if they are the > same then they should be tagged on the same way (at least as I see it). If you tag them “on the same way” you state that they are the same thing and that all tags apply to it contemporaneously. I would say they could be mapped with the same way delimiting them (but as distinct objects). The fence is the boundary of the park, there is some connection between the two, but they are not the same thing. Cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
