2009/10/28 Lesi <[email protected]> > > 2009/10/24 Lesi <[email protected]>: > > > >> - In the forum somebody has suggested to add a tag for the name of the > >> mine > >> the mineshaft belongs to. At first I thought this would be the same as > >> operator, but actually it is not. So which tag would be appropriate? > >> mine=...? > > > > to associate the mineshaft to the mine I'd not recommend to do it with > > tags but either with a polygon, or with a relation (e.g. > > site-relation) or both. > > > > cheers, > > Martin > > I do not see a possibility to express it with a polygon. Mineshaft are > often > outside of the main area of the mine. >
how do you define "main area"? Aren't the shafts vertical access / ventilation shafts that lead to the inner mine? IMHO that defines them as part of the mine (and indicates that they should be comprised). > I already thought about a relation. But AFAIK the site-relation is also > just > a proposal at the moment. > yes, but there doesn't seem to be a better one (AFAIR just route, multipolygon and restrictions are approved relations). > Besides it is quite easy to map a mineshaft, but difficult to map the rest > of the mine, if there are no satellite pictures. or the company provides you the information, or you work there. That's anyway not a problem to discuss: either you have the info and put it or you don't and will most likely not put it. > And it would be senseless > to make a relation which contains only the mineshaft. > So IMO there should be tag with the name of the mine. This does not prevent > to add the mineshaft to a site-relation as well. > > sure, just put name=<name_of_the_mine> like for any other feature. A problem might arise if the mineshaft has a name itself and/or if there is more than one mineshaft. In these cases I'd still opt for the relation. cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
