The relation type=site proposal [1] has been around for seven years now. Milliams is the original creator of the draft while Joshdoe cleaned up the proposal page, added some to the discussion and also sent out an RFC in 2011 [2].
The relation has a bit of troubled history since the original idea - usage for a typical school - is strongly discouraged now. The RFC brought up the point that the relation is not needed if the feature can be represented by a polygon. The definition now is: "A way to group features (represented by nodes/ways/areas/relations) which belong together but cannot be adequately described by an area/multipolygon. [...] This relation is understood to group man-made objects. For groups of natural objects which share the same name see proposed relation Cluster. " Further changes since the last RFC: * The key site=* has been deprecated, better use the full tag instead (e.g. amenity=university). * The label role has been removed since this is strongly resisted by cartographers.[3] * The entrance role has been removed since it did not fit the new definition. Discussion is ongoing to readd it. * The perimeter role has been moved to a sub-proposal with new definition. * Documented usage examples from the wiki have been added. I'd like to bring your attention to the proposal. Please visit the proposal page [1] and add your comments to the discussion. Cheers, Joachim (Jojo4u) [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site [2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2011-February/006730.html [3] https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/546#issuecomment-45504933 _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
