Kevin: We can put park data as a name= tag into a node and see it render. Sometimes that is a good placeholder, good enough. Where Elliott and I seem to agree is that we put units of parks into a similarly-named park super-relation. (I hyphenate that, Elliott seems not to, OK). The elements of that super-relation can be polygons and/or multi polygons. Just as you might add additional (note or even note_2) tags to a node. It’s just set theory: nodes, ways, closed ways (polygons) relations of type multi polygon and relations of relations (super-relations). We get it, it’s a plastic way of grouping. As we put ideas together as the best placeholders as we can, we’re doing fine. Following our wiki pages as they get us to follow along with the bouncing ball: hey, that’s priceless. We take it as we get it!
I so love the spirit of “do our best at all costs” in this project, I truly do. (Must we rewrite some wikis on how to grok super-relations? It is a “not everybody does, but everybody can” topic. If Kevin is befuddled maybe we should). It seems OSM encompasses a large family of how parks might be displayed: as nodes, as relations of multi polygon, as super relations and so on. Actually, this is fundamental to OSM: how renderers and/or data consumers pay attention to super-relations. Some respect them, some don’t. SteveA California _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
