Let's start another thread site VS multipolygons. It's interesting and it would be godd to keep in the archives.
Le 2 octobre 2018 12:00:15 GMT+02:00, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@tutanota.com> a écrit : >2. Oct 2018 05:15 by ba...@ursamundi.org <mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org>: > > >>> >>> >>> >>> - this data is basically not usable. >>> >> Sure it is. Say I want to know what amenities an RV park has in >another city...you could go "hey, what does Somewhereville RV Park >have?" or just throw Somewhereville RV Park and get a list of >everything that belongs to the same site. Dump station, fuel pump, >convenience store, information stand, mailboxes, laundry, showers, >toilets...regardless of whether or not these things are named or not, >or even share the same name as the RV park itself. Like, say, "Old >Faceful Geyser" (actually a splashpad) in the "Jellystone Park" RV park >at Lake Eufaula (to use something I might try if I was taking my >boyfriend and niece truck camping and wasn't actually familiar with >this being a delightfully furry, yet corny, and relatively comfortable >for cheap truck-tent camping). > > >I am not sure how it requires a site relation. Mapping feature as a >polygon is sufficient tomark objects inside this polygon as, well, >inside the polygon. >In rare cases of holes/disjointed areas multipolygon is needed.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
