Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 00:51 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
> -1 to a site relation for an area with a defined outer boundary. > > Relation = boundary (and =multipolygon) works fine for defining an area, > and you can make holes to exclude at my “outparcels” or villages which are > not part of the official protected area. > the difference is that in case a thing which is either outer or inner member of a boundary or multipolygon changes, you will not know whether the MP has to change or you have to duplicate the old border for the multipolygon because it should remain. In a site relation it is clearer that the modification of a member should likely have immediate effect on the relation as well. > Mappers don’t need to add things to relations when the geometry is enough > to show that node A isi side of area B. > different semantics. IMHO there are situations where explicit relation is preferable over implicit spatial relation. This said, I am hardly ever using site relations ;-) Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
