On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 10:19, Lionel Giard <lionel.gi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The site relation was originally created for groups of features : power > plant (wind turbine nodes spread over the land or sea), historical sites > (often only some element (one tower, one building, ...) are historic and > not the entire place) and parking (especially underground parking with only > entrance mapped) spread over multiple locations. It fit exactly what is an > university spread over a city or multiple places. The word "site" may be > wrong, but that was the one chosen there and could be changed i suppose (i > don't care for the word used myself ^_^). But creating a new relation type > which would be with the same specification than a site relation would be a > bit weird to me. It is overly complex for the usage no ? As the only > interest is to have one feature in OSM that group all the university part > and get all the university attribute. Is that really important that it is > called "site" instead of "institution" ? :p > > In any case, it would be interesting to define it correctly in the wiki so > other mappers can find a "how to map" (either on site relation or a new > relation if more people are in favour for that). :-) > I support this opinion. Additional use cases, beyond university and research organisations: city administrations - we have here a number of decentralised admin offices that use part of commercial buildings (no way to draw a polygon arund them. All my examples are based on real local situations.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
