Stuart wrote: > 1 site, 2 schools: > • boundary has amenity=school > • buildings have school names & e.g. edubase tags. I used amenity=school for > the individual buildings though, as well as building=school. It should > probably > only be building=school, really, as the site is the amenity. But this way it > gets > picked up on the match tool. > • I would ideally like to have named the boundary e.g. “Hamstel Schools” > or “Chalkwell Schools” but haven’t as that will (for now) lead to a false > “look at” flag.
I think what you describe as what you’d ideally like to do is what I did in those examples I mentioned in my previous email (I can't remember though whether I used building=school or building=yes). > 1 school, 2 sites. > > • I used the site relation, via JOSM. I believe that this is the correct way > to do it. I > tagged the site relation with the edubase code and names, and the individual > sites > with the names of e.g. “XX upper school” and “XX lower school”. However, > these > didn’t get matched. The site relation page however http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site#Proposal suggests it should be multipolygon and not site - "For example the tag amenity=school describes the perimeter of the school grounds, for schools with multiple sites the multipolygon relation can be used. Usage of a site relation is not appropriate here." Ed _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
