I also disagree. The discussion on this list about how to map groups of lakes that share one overall name resulted in my use of type=group to describe them. If I'm restricted to using the group relation for nodes only, I'm back to square one. I might just as well use a multipolygon relation for them as I have in the past.
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:21 AM Eugene Alvin Villar <sea...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:00 PM Joseph Eisenberg < > joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I added some comments to the talk page of your "type=group" relation >> proposal. >> >> I would recommend simplifying the proposal to just be for groups of >> nodes, because there are already relations for multipolygons (areas) >> > > I disagree. I think a group of areas is semantically different from a > multipolygon. If I will relate this to GeoJSON concepts, the first is like > a GeoJSON FeatureCollection where individual Features are > Polygons/MultiPolygons, while the second is just a GeoJSON MultiPolygon. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
