-1 to a site relation for an area with a defined outer boundary. Relation = boundary (and =multipolygon) works fine for defining an area, and you can make holes to exclude at my “outparcels” or villages which are not part of the official protected area.
Mappers don’t need to add things to relations when the geometry is enough to show that node A isi side of area B. Joseph On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 7:02 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 29. Jul 2019, at 16:37, Kevin Kenny <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > There are other historic sites embedded in the park.... > > > are all these sites mentioned to be part of the state park, or do they > simply happen to be within the boundaries? > If the definition of the park is a list of areas and sites, maybe a site > relation would be appropriate: you can specify a perimeter and also add > stuff inside (not only polygons but also nodes and ways). If legislation > said the park is made up of A, B, C, D and E, it would be comprehensive if > we modeled it as an object with A, B, C, D and E as members. > > Cheers Martin > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
