Am 18.09.2014 00:18, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > >> Il giorno 17/set/2014, alle ore 22:32, "Dave F." <[email protected]> ha >> scritto: >> >> As an example: If it has a name you'd have two objects of that name, when in >> fact there's only one. If someone wanted to find out how many named wood >> there are in a city it would return inaccurate data. > > > I agree with this, that's why IMO we should have 2 distinct kind of > properties (and maybe objects), one kind for name (and type of thing) and one > kind for descriptions of subobjects like an area where trees grows. inside a > named forest you might have lots of areas without actual trees. Eg > natural=wood and name=* vs. landcover=trees
No, the name problem is simply solved with a multipolygon or site relation if needed. This way we still have one single object. It is still a forest even if there are no trees atm. Please use landcover=* to add this information. Or exclude the area if permanent. One more option would be to use place=locality or even place=forest with the name cu colliar
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
