|Definition:||A way to group features which belong together but cannot be adequately described by an area/multipolygon.|
This proposal was created by User:Milliams with significant editioral work by User:Joshdoe. In 2015/2016 User:Jojo4u developed the proposal further towards the principle only when not representable as area. A version of the original proposal from 2013 can be found here.
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 are dispersed power plants like wind, tidal and photovoltaic power plants which are mapped as nodes. This relation is understood to group man-made objects. For groups of natural objects which share the same name see proposed relation 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 tag. For example the tag amenity=school describes the perimeter of the school grounds, for schools with multiple sites the multipolygon relation should be used. For an university with buildings scattered throughout the city a multipolygon amenity=university with the buildings as role outer should be used.
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!
Reasons for Area/Multipolygon Insufficiency
- Members are nodes or open ways
- Member areas do not fit the multipolygon definition
- touching outer ways on more than one point
|*||*||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 tag describing the type of the site, better use the full tag (main tag). Existing usage may continue. Might also be used for new sites if no suitable full tag exists.|
|Way or Node||Role||Recurrence?||Discussion|
|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).|
|perimeter||zero or one||see sub-proposal Proposed_features/Site_Perimeter|
|at most ~1500 (2015-08)||5294212tagged as multipolygon for now, future depends on|
|Dispersed facilities power plants like wind, tidal and photovoltaic power plants.|| type=site
|up to 436 (2015-08)||3792332|
|Parking sites|| type=site
| Heritage site
Historical Objects Map
|at most ~1000 (2015-08)||1071059|
| Historic site
Historical Objects Map
|at most ~3800 (2015-08)||3089842|
|French survey point site (IGN import)|| type=site
Documented Uses (incompatible with current definition)
|UK NaPTAN|| type=site
|partial import, should migrate to public_transport=stop_area||293290|
|South Africa shopping areas|| type=site
|most representable as area||2374662|
|Piste site (rejected)|| type=site
|tagging as area preferred by some, issue open||3578623|
|Camp site (proposed)|| type=site
|most representable as area||1142359|
|Playground site (rarely used)|| type=site
|most representable as area which enclose the equipment|
2015-08: 135 392 total, 48 476 NAPTAN, 72 586 IGN, 14 330 other uses.
2016-04: 136 829 total, 48 103 NAPTAN, 72 578 IGN, 16 148 other uses.
Proposed_features/Site_Perimeter sub-proposal bringing areas to the relation.
Discussion on the Talk page.