relation site <> multipolygon

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

relation site <> multipolygon

marc marc
Le 02. 10. 18 à 11:46, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
 > Can you link this case if that is more complicated?
it's a fictional example. ok not the better one.

take again the example you cut in the initial message:
a wind turbin site with a few turbines represented by a few nodes
I hope your solution is not to make a way for each wind turbine
to be able to add in into a multipolygon to describe the site.
it would not make much sense to make a polygon encompassing all objects
between the wind turbines and describe that the whole thing is a wind site
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relation site <> multipolygon

Mateusz Konieczny-3
2. Październik 2018 12:36 od [hidden email]:

Le 02. 10. 18 à 11:46, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> Can you link this case if that is more complicated?
it's a fictional example. ok not the better one.

take again the example you cut in the initial message:
a wind turbin site with a few turbines represented by a few nodes
I hope your solution is not to make a way for each wind turbine
to be able to add in into a multipolygon to describe the site.
it would not make much sense to make a polygon encompassing all objects
between the wind turbines and describe that the whole thing is a wind site


 I agree that for wind turbines multipolygon may not be feasible. 


So far it is the only known to me case where site relation maybe is useful 

(I have no experience with features like wind turbine farms so it is hard 

for me to judge this case - that is why I skipped it).


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relation site <> multipolygon

Yves-2
This my pet use case for a site relation:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3161183#map=7/46.532/6.097

I'm not confortable to draw polygons around the ski pistes to then build a landuse=winter_sport multipolygon.
Given the wildlife conservation rules in the area, I also doubt I can include the forest between pistes.
Yves

Le 2 octobre 2018 17:07:11 GMT+02:00, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> a écrit :
2. Październik 2018 12:36 od [hidden email]:

Le 02. 10. 18 à 11:46, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> Can you link this case if that is more complicated?
it's a fictional example. ok not the better one.

take again the example you cut in the initial message:
a wind turbin site with a few turbines represented by a few nodes
I hope your solution is not to make a way for each wind turbine
to be able to add in into a multipolygon to describe the site.
it would not make much sense to make a polygon encompassing all objects
between the wind turbines and describe that the whole thing is a wind site


 I agree that for wind turbines multipolygon may not be feasible. 


So far it is the only known to me case where site relation maybe is useful 

(I have no experience with features like wind turbine farms so it is hard 

for me to judge this case - that is why I skipped it).


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relation site <> multipolygon

Marc Gemis
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3
This relation combines a number of cave entrances the belong to the
same system that is apparantly protected:
http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/translate/en/index-en.html?zoom=16&lat=50.67804&lon=7.22231&layers=B0000FT&detail=3
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:08 PM Mateusz Konieczny
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> 2. Październik 2018 12:36 od [hidden email]:
>
> Le 02. 10. 18 à 11:46, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> > Can you link this case if that is more complicated?
> it's a fictional example. ok not the better one.
>
> take again the example you cut in the initial message:
> a wind turbin site with a few turbines represented by a few nodes
> I hope your solution is not to make a way for each wind turbine
> to be able to add in into a multipolygon to describe the site.
> it would not make much sense to make a polygon encompassing all objects
> between the wind turbines and describe that the whole thing is a wind site
>
>
>  I agree that for wind turbines multipolygon may not be feasible.
>
>
> So far it is the only known to me case where site relation maybe is useful
>
> (I have no experience with features like wind turbine farms so it is hard
>
> for me to judge this case - that is why I skipped it).
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relation site <> multipolygon

Lionel Giard
My main use for site relation are for historical sites to group the historical elements of the castle or other historical site including the wall, moat, buildings (especially the ones touching each other) and various nodes. An example in the historical commandry of the Hospital order (in Belgium) here : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8671447#map=19/50.69111/4.88753 . The only historical elements are grouped in the relation (we can still see some of the coat of arms of the order on these buildings...). I couldn't group all the buildings into a multi-polygon like usual farms as i wanted to get the distinction between old and new buildings (some of them have different start_date).
Same thing with an historical farm https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8671752 , i wanted to keep the information about the different parts of the building (in french here saying "old stable", "main building", "dovecoat", ...) and once again, the different parts get different start_date. 

For those two examples, i couldn't use the multipolygon due to the buildings sharing common edge. In those case, the site relation is mostly a "multi-polygon" whitout its limitations and the possibility to group node when needed like the old mines where the mineshaft (or the memorial stone indicating the shaft) are represented as a node. O
Another use of the site relation for historic object is to tag the special heritage concerning all the site (not only one building or element).

There are also the "multipolygon" for an university dispersed in a city like in Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium) : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8148420#map=16/50.6684/4.6142
If i want to group every part of the university into only 1 amenity=university, i needed a site relation as some part are only "node" inside a buildings (to indicate the presence of a faculty in a multi purpose building or one of the underground parking of the university). I tried with a multi-polygons but i couldn't add the nodes, nor the "touching" buildings (without creating "pseudo" polygon enveloping both and without any reality existence). Also, some buildings are multi-polygon themselft (the "donut-like" buildings) and in at least one case, the inner ring is not part of the university itself.

I don't find site relation difficult to interpret in those case (as it is not for rendering !), it is usable by application like gk.historic.place website that show the site relation objects only (i suppose they only download the members of the relation).

Le mar. 2 oct. 2018 à 18:03, Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> a écrit :
This relation combines a number of cave entrances the belong to the
same system that is apparantly protected:
http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/translate/en/index-en.html?zoom=16&lat=50.67804&lon=7.22231&layers=B0000FT&detail=3
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:08 PM Mateusz Konieczny
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 2. Październik 2018 12:36 od [hidden email]:
>
> Le 02. 10. 18 à 11:46, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> > Can you link this case if that is more complicated?
> it's a fictional example. ok not the better one.
>
> take again the example you cut in the initial message:
> a wind turbin site with a few turbines represented by a few nodes
> I hope your solution is not to make a way for each wind turbine
> to be able to add in into a multipolygon to describe the site.
> it would not make much sense to make a polygon encompassing all objects
> between the wind turbines and describe that the whole thing is a wind site
>
>
>  I agree that for wind turbines multipolygon may not be feasible.
>
>
> So far it is the only known to me case where site relation maybe is useful
>
> (I have no experience with features like wind turbine farms so it is hard
>
> for me to judge this case - that is why I skipped it).
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relation site <> multipolygon

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Marc Gemis
and I am trying to improve it.

"multiple cave entrances of a single cave" sounds like a good example of a valid use

Can you link directly OSM relation of this object?

2. Oct 2018 18:01 by [hidden email]:

This relation combines a number of cave entrances the belong to the
same system that is apparantly protected:
http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/translate/en/index-en.html?zoom=16&lat=50.67804&lon=7.22231&layers=B0000FT&detail=3
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:08 PM Mateusz Konieczny
<[hidden email]> wrote:

2. Październik 2018 12:36 od [hidden email]:

Le 02. 10. 18 à 11:46, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> Can you link this case if that is more complicated?
it's a fictional example. ok not the better one.

take again the example you cut in the initial message:
a wind turbin site with a few turbines represented by a few nodes
I hope your solution is not to make a way for each wind turbine
to be able to add in into a multipolygon to describe the site.
it would not make much sense to make a polygon encompassing all objects
between the wind turbines and describe that the whole thing is a wind site


I agree that for wind turbines multipolygon may not be feasible.


So far it is the only known to me case where site relation maybe is useful

(I have no experience with features like wind turbine farms so it is hard

for me to judge this case - that is why I skipped it).

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relation site <> multipolygon

Marc Gemis
The relation is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2721886
The historic place link only works if you manually select a base map
from the menu.

regards

m.
On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 2:47 PM Mateusz Konieczny
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I found (again) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site
> and I am trying to improve it.
>
> "multiple cave entrances of a single cave" sounds like a good example of a valid use
> but http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/translate/en/index-en.html?zoom=16&lat=50.67804&lon=7.22231&layers=B0000FT&detail=3 is not loading properly for me.
>
> Can you link directly OSM relation of this object?
>
> 2. Oct 2018 18:01 by [hidden email]:
>
> This relation combines a number of cave entrances the belong to the
> same system that is apparantly protected:
> http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/translate/en/index-en.html?zoom=16&lat=50.67804&lon=7.22231&layers=B0000FT&detail=3
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:08 PM Mateusz Konieczny
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> 2. Październik 2018 12:36 od [hidden email]:
>
> Le 02. 10. 18 à 11:46, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> > Can you link this case if that is more complicated?
> it's a fictional example. ok not the better one.
>
> take again the example you cut in the initial message:
> a wind turbin site with a few turbines represented by a few nodes
> I hope your solution is not to make a way for each wind turbine
> to be able to add in into a multipolygon to describe the site.
> it would not make much sense to make a polygon encompassing all objects
> between the wind turbines and describe that the whole thing is a wind site
>
>
> I agree that for wind turbines multipolygon may not be feasible.
>
>
> So far it is the only known to me case where site relation maybe is useful
>
> (I have no experience with features like wind turbine farms so it is hard
>
> for me to judge this case - that is why I skipped it).
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relation site <> multipolygon

Mateusz Konieczny-3
Thanks. I added it to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site#Examples

7. Oct 2018 17:23 by [hidden email]:

The relation is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2721886
The historic place link only works if you manually select a base map
from the menu.

regards

m.
On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 2:47 PM Mateusz Konieczny
<[hidden email]> wrote:

I found (again) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site
and I am trying to improve it.

"multiple cave entrances of a single cave" sounds like a good example of a valid use
but http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/translate/en/index-en.html?zoom=16&lat=50.67804&lon=7.22231&layers=B0000FT&detail=3 is not loading properly for me.

Can you link directly OSM relation of this object?

2. Oct 2018 18:01 by [hidden email]:

This relation combines a number of cave entrances the belong to the
same system that is apparantly protected:
http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/translate/en/index-en.html?zoom=16&lat=50.67804&lon=7.22231&layers=B0000FT&detail=3
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:08 PM Mateusz Konieczny
<[hidden email]> wrote:


2. Październik 2018 12:36 od [hidden email]:

Le 02. 10. 18 à 11:46, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> Can you link this case if that is more complicated?
it's a fictional example. ok not the better one.

take again the example you cut in the initial message:
a wind turbin site with a few turbines represented by a few nodes
I hope your solution is not to make a way for each wind turbine
to be able to add in into a multipolygon to describe the site.
it would not make much sense to make a polygon encompassing all objects
between the wind turbines and describe that the whole thing is a wind site


I agree that for wind turbines multipolygon may not be feasible.


So far it is the only known to me case where site relation maybe is useful

(I have no experience with features like wind turbine farms so it is hard

for me to judge this case - that is why I skipped it).

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging