On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 14:45 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: >... > The fact that rendering on osm-carto is so far behind tagging is an > issue. > Indeed.
> But treating the campsite like a building, and the pitches like > apartments, makes a lot of logical sense. I don't see any theoretical issue with calling a caravan park a building from a routing point of view. Wonder if it might give a misleading result on a rendered map that shows buildings .... > > And it scales well to how much is known: Bryce, what does osm-carto do with your example below ? As you noted in another message, addr:housenumber, while wrong, gives some very positive feedback, silly to ignore that fact. I see a similar problem with some retirement villages, market stalls, car parks..... David > > > 0) leisure=camp_site, drinking_water=no (nothing is known about > pitches) > 1) capacity=100 (we know > there are 100 pitches, but not where they are) > > 2) addr:unit=1-50 addr:interpolation=all (we know pitches 1-50 > along this road or area, but not exactly where) > 3) addr:interpolation=odd addr:unit=1-49 (tagging one side of a > road) > 4) addr:unit=1 (here's > the center or entrance of pitch #1). > 5) relation=site addr:unit=1 contains bench/parking/sewer dump/picnic > table/gopher hole/tree/blades of grass (micro mapping extraordinaire) > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
