Proposal:Site Perimeter

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Site Perimeter
Proposal status: Inactive (inactive)
Proposed by: Jojo4u
Tagging: type=site
Applies to: relation
Definition: A role for Relation:site bringing areas to the relation.

Draft started: 2015-08-12


When a subset of the features of site relation are within an area, a closed way closed way or relation multipolygon around them can added to the relation as member with Role perimeter.

The area should be treated as being tagged according to the main tag of the site relation.

There are three conditions:

  1. The main tag of the site relation must be suitable for use as an area area.
  2. The perimeter way can be tagged as a typical closed way closed way (e.g. barrier=fence) or be without tags, but must not be tagged as area area itself (e.g. landuse=*).
  3. Elements within the perimeter should not be additionally added to the relation as implementations can perform an is-in-polygon test to determine what elements belong to the site.

For example a university with spread buildings a central campus might be represented by an perimeter, as amenity=university is suitable for use as an area area.


A site relation should NOT 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. But often some elements of a site are inside one or more areas, while other elements are not. This proposal tries bring the both worlds site relations and areas together.




Way or Node Role Recurrence? Discussion
closed way perimeter zero or one Closed way or untagged multipolygon encircling a subset of the site. Elements within should not be added to the relation.

Applies to

Relations of type site.


Should be rendered as if it was an area on its own according to the main tag.

Features/Pages affected

New role for type site.


Instead of a multipolygon, would it as well be permitted to use several open ways which together form a closed loop? --glglgl 08:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, this would make the definition more difficult. Multipolygons would still be necessary for areas with holes. Do you have an example where this would facilitate mapping?--Jojo4u (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)