Re [1] Grande Cariçaie Looking at the relation, all I see is “type=group” and name=“Grande Cariçaie”. If you load the members, you see that each is a way, fortunately the names include “Reserve Naturalle” so that helps.
But how am I to know why this relation is? Its not a nature reserve or protected area by itself? Where does the name come from, if it isn’t an official protected area with some sort of shared administration? If it were a type=multipolygon with leisure=nature_reserve, or a boundary with protected_area, it would be clear what feature this name refers to. [2] Group of sculptures I’ve seen sculpture gardens, which can be mapped as an area. These sculptures are all in one row, so they could almost be mapped as a linear way instead of as separate nodes. But I agree that a relation type for a group of nodes could be useful for a number of things, including art installations that are scattered over an area and can’t be perfectly represented by a node, line or area. However, I would still like this to work like other relations and ways: the tags need to be on the object (the relation). In this case, when I open the relation all I see is a list of nodes, with no tags. I have to select one of the nodes to find out that it's a sculpture, then check all the others to see if they are they same. On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:24 PM Markus <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 16:26, Joseph Eisenberg > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > @MarKus: Regarding the tagging of islands or lake groups (clusters), I've > > > already begun to use the type=group tag and hope that someone will push > > > OSM-Carto to render such relations in the future. > > > > It will be very difficult to handle such relations in osm2pgsql, the > > tool that is used to import the database for rendering, as long as the > > group relation can include other relations, ways, and nodes in one > > object. > > > > Is there any reason that lake groups cannot be tagged as multipolygon > > relations? These are already handled by most database users, including > > Openstreetmap-Carto. > > It's not just about groups of lakes. There are other groups, where the > individual elements either have no name or individual names, for > example this group of natural reserves [1] or this group of sculptures > [2]. The group of sculptures consists of nodes, thus a multi-polygon > relation doesn't work for it. And for other groups that could be > mapped as multi-polygons (such as the group of natural reserves), this > would mean that we would need new tags for about every existing tag > (at least for about every tag that is used on areas). > > [1]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8856988 > [2]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8961321 > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
