On 18/09/2014 19:51, colliar wrote:
Am 18.09.2014 00:18, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
Il giorno 17/set/2014, alle ore 22:32, "Dave F." <dave...@madasafish.com> ha
scritto:
As an example: If it has a name you'd have two objects of that name, when in
fact there's only one. If someone wanted to find out how many named wood there
are in a city it would return inaccurate data.
I agree with this, that's why IMO we should have 2 distinct kind of properties
(and maybe objects), one kind for name (and type of thing) and one kind for
descriptions of subobjects like an area where trees grows. inside a named
forest you might have lots of areas without actual trees. Eg natural=wood and
name=* vs. landcover=trees
No, the name problem is simply solved with a multipolygon or site
relation if needed. This way we still have one single object.
Does that get classed as a "relations are not a collection of objects"
problem?
I'm playing devil's advocate here, personally I'm still unsure peoples
objections to collections in relations are.
It is still a forest even if there are no trees atm. Please use
landcover=* to add this information. Or exclude the area if permanent.
One more option would be to use place=locality or even place=forest with
the name
cu colliar
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
