Le 10.11.22 à 21:49, Sven Geggus a écrit :
With site-relations this is even easier as I can consider all objects
related to the site a feature of the camp-site in the relation.
I think this is elegant especially in comparison to the alternatives
first of all, you can't say both that the restaurant is not part of
tourism=camp_site as an explanation for the fact that the closed way
doesn't include it and at the same time is part of tourism=camp_site
to justify its inclusion in the site relation, it is inconsistent.
furthermore for you the restaurant and parking is not part of
the campsite. for me it is. for another the bus stop in front of
the campsite is obviously "part of" the site, another will be
interested in the postcard seller or the bike hire company.
another person will consider "your radius" around the campsite
to be too small or too large. in addition to the representation
in the form of a node + a closed way + your site relation,
we are obviously not going to make a relationship according
to the opinion of each person :
relation are not arbitrary collections intended to represent
your personal choices : no relation to group the red benches
located within 20m of a bus stop. no relation to group
tourism=camp_site and shops/restaurants around it according
to your criteria.
hardcode your criteria into your software, not in the osm database.
a site relation is made for wind farm sites because the space
between the turbines is sometimes used for other things (e.g. grazing),
and not to include other elements such as the workers' parking, the
restaurant where they eat and the shop they visit
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
