Relations/Proposed/Site

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Site Relation
Status: Proposed (under way)
Proposed by: Jojo4u
Tagging: type=site
Applies to: Relation
Definition: A way to group features which belong together but cannot be adequately described by an area/multipolygon.
Rendered as: <appearance>
Draft start: 2008-01-02
RFC start: 2010-02-01
Vote start:
Vote end: *

Origins

This proposal was created by User:Milliams with significant editioral work by User:Joshdoe. A version of the original proposal from 2013 can be found here.

Proposal

A way to group features (represented by nodes/ways/areas/relations) which belong together but cannot be adequately described by an area/multipolygon. A common example of this is a university site with a number of separate buildings across the city. This relation is understood to group man-made objects. For groups of natural objects which share the same name see Cluster.

However, this relation is not to be used in cases where the elements are inside one or more areas where the perimeter can be tagged with an appropriate Area area tag. 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.

The features should have a close geographic relationship, usually within the same town. For example do not use this relation to group all restaurants of a fast-food chain. Use a a combination of name=*/operator=*/network=* to group loosely coupled and/or widely distributed features - relations are not categories!

Tagging

Key Value notes statistics
type site
* * The main tag - whatever feature the site relation describes. E.g. amenity=university, site=parking, power=plant.
name * The name of the feature
site * Legacy method of describing the type of the site, better use the full tag (see above).

Members

Way or Node Role Recurrence? Discussion
Node Way Area Relation none zero or more Anything you want to tag as part of the site. e.g. buildings, parking entrances, power generators, (looking for more examples).
Closed way perimeter zero or one see sub-proposal Proposed_features/Site_Perimeter
entrance zero or more Node(s) on the perimeter defining the entrances to the site. Removed since perimeter around whole site is contradicting this proposal

Examples

Documented Uses

Feature Tag Statistics Example
Dispersed facilities power plants like wind, tidal and photovoltaic power plants. power=plant 245 (2015-08) Relation Høg-Jæren Energipark
Parking sites site=parking Relation Parkhaus Liederhalle/Bosch-Areal
Heritage site
Historical Objects Map
heritage=* at most ~1000 (2015-08) Relation Weißenhofsiedlung
French survey point site (IGN import) site=geodesic Relation Le Bélieu I

Documented Uses (incompatible with current definition)

Feature Tag Statistics
UK NaPTAN (partial import, should migrate to public_transport=stop_area now) site=stop_area Relation Bridgtown. Watling Street. Cross Street
South Africa shopping areas (many representable as area) site=mall
Piste site (rejected) site=piste
Camp site (proposed) site=camp_site
Playground site (accepted) site=playground at most ~1000 (2015-08)

Statistics

2015-08: 135 392 total, 48 476 NAPTAN, 72 586 IGN, 14 330 other uses.

Rendering

See Also

Proposed_features/Site_Perimeter sub-proposal bringing areas to the relation.

Discussion

Discussion on the Talk page.

Also read the thread "Feature Proposal - RFC - Site Relation" on the tagging mailing list.