Indeed, I aggree. Dropping the amenity would probably be enough I think.
If you take it a step further, I don't even see where amenity is allowed
on a relation checking the wiki (bear in mind I made 2 of those myself
which I'm reconsidering right now)
So stricto senso, it's not allowed, furthermore an amenity is a
"interesting place I would want to go to", so it needs to stay
concentrated to a local area.
You're right about the network relation too Marc, That's probably what
they need.
Glenn
On 06/24/2013 09:16 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:
The wiki clearly describes that the relation=network should be used to
combine routes (walking, bus, ...) together. see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Network
This "network" groups together single nodes. That's outside the scope.
From a database design viewpoint, I understand that one wants to
"normalize" common attributes in a separate table. However, this is
not the way most things are done in OSM. We do not create a network of
Shell-tankstations, McDonalds restaurants or BMW-dealers.
I would contact the mapper and ask him on which basis he thinks that
we should create relations like this.
regards
m
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Glenn Plas <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi everyone,
Been looking at this relation today : 271476 ( see
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/271476 )
It has an amenity set, but these points are widely spread out, I
think this goes against the intended idea behind amenity's.
Any comments ?
Glenn
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
