So your advice is to actually skip the parent relation object, and thus
leave the parts separate and related implicitly just by shared borders
and having the same name? Ok, fine by me.
I certainly agree with you that data users probably won't turn complex
patterns into something meaningful, as there is no real standard
documentation of how to map things, just a wiki of soft and incomplete
"advice", and lots of dead-end methods that never catched on. I rather
avoid wasting time on using/inventing yet another of those dead-end
methods. I think a better way would be a well-documented OSM-standard
where the standards organization on itself figure out needs and take the
lead rather than anonymous individual mappers like myself must invent
own methods for needs that are really quite basic. But that just won't
happen, so I know that I'm probably just wasting my time mapping at this
detail level. But the OSM way is to let mappers take the lead and
renderers (maybe) come after, I think it's a very BAD way now when OSM
is as large as it is, but it's the way it is, so I'm in a take it or
leave it situation. I enjoy mapping and OSM is the only free alternative
there is.
On 2020-12-12 12:43, Christoph Hormann wrote:
My strong advise is not to make this more complicated than it is and
especially not cargo cult some complex data model in the hope that
data users will turn this into something meaningful - they won't.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
