Josh Doe wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:51 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > <dieterdre...@gmail.com <mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > you could have empty relations (no own members) with tags on them that > are themselves member of another relation and therefore > usefull/intended without their own members. > > True, though Sarah did define orphaned relations as "relations that have > no members and are not member[s] of any other relation". Though I'd > still say relations without members (but children of other relations) > are meaningless and don't belong in OSM as they contain no geographic > information.
Relations without members can be associated with geographic information via their parents and are not inherently meaningless. The relations described by Sarah are probably errors. Relations without members can be used intentionally, and while they might not be your preferred way of modelling a certain fact, deleting them should not be considered. -- Tobias Knerr _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
