@Martin, the quote from the wiki really looks like a multipolygon definition.
Would those walls be mapped as a multipolygon instead?
Why do you say "A site means things are concentrated around a point", sites
relation helps to map disjoint elements, but I don't think I saw anything about
their repartition. Also it certainly makes no sense to have sites extending
over extremely large areas.
Yves
Le 13 juillet 2020 01:14:40 GMT+02:00, Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdre...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>
>sent from a phone
>
>> On 13. Jul 2020, at 00:11, Volker Schmidt <vosc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I do consider a site relation a fitting approach for a city wall.
>
>
>its use would also go against the wiki definition which states: „ This
>relation is not to be used in cases where the element can be represented by
>one or more areas and neither linear ways nor nodes outside these areas would
>have to be included or excluded from within these areas“
>
>clearly the remains of the Aurelian walls can be nicely represented by areas.
>Indeed it seems a good representation to map them as buildings, and people
>including myself have started to do it some time ago.
>
>Generally I believe the requirement for a site relation that its constituting
>parts should be in the same town, is not strict enough. A handful of objects
>scattered around in a town are not a „site“. A site means things are
>concentrated around a point, and when there are more things in the other side
>of the town that somehow belonged to it, they would be considered off site,
>i.e. their relationship would come from other aspects, not because they are
>part of the same „site“.
>
>Cheers Martin
--
Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec Courriel K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma
brièveté.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
