@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

Reply via email to