so if the park is only a rough guess, are you going to be able to define the AFZ any better? So long as the relation is attached to the polygon (or other feature), when that feature gets updated so will the relation. I will take a stab at doing one for Bendigo and post it onto the list for discussion.
2009/12/30 John Smith <[email protected]> > 2009/12/30 Craig Feuerherdt <[email protected]>: > > The same thing happens here as well John. > > So you are saying that specific playgrounds etc are AFZ's as well. So in > > those instances they would be part of a relation (with a single object ie > > the polygon representing the playground). > > I think relations are the best option for AFZ's because they allow > > flexibility to cover both scenarios. It is therefore easier for renders > to > > look at just relations when it comes to rendering them rather than tags > and > > relations. > > Perhaps relations would be good enough if you can map landuse areas, > but in rural areas it's hard to map landuses, most parks are rough > guesses. >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
