A barrier on a park will have some means of getting in!!!
So the barrier will not be continuous - having gate/s or gaps etc.
The park boundary would then consist of the way that is the fence/barrier and
other ways (possibly a gate etc) and that then meets the definition for a
multipolygon relation.
On 14/04/19 16:49, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
