Talk:Relations/Proposed/Site/Archive 1

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search



The examples on the proposal page are flawed.

  • playground: A playground typically occupies one monolithic area. According to the proposal's introduction, you should not use a site relation for this.
  • school: Relation relation 1403393 no more exists. It was certainly deleted for the above reason.
  • CERN: Relation relation 27005 has 330 members, all close to each other. It seems to me that the gaps between them belong to CERN as well, except for the Route de Meyrin. I think that we can replace the whole relation with a simple multipolygon consisting of the area south of the Route the Meyrin, and the area north of the Route de Meyrin.

--Fkv (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree.--Jojo4u (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree too. We should delete these examples and find some new ones that really need to use the site relation. For example: an underground site=parking. --K1wi (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

All old examples have been removed since they are better described as area/multipolygon and where replaced by better ones.--Jojo4u (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved ? Where and to what?

There are a number of topics above that have discussions .. with a "resolved" thingy .. but no clear resolution is obvious to me... Warin61 (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Many discussions don't have a clear conclusion. It is not possible to say that this proposal has reached any kind of consensus. Nor is its use clear! I would use relation=site and then add the individual areas as elements to the relation, any common things to the relation. Warin61 (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussions marked as resolved have been conclusively answered with the current state of the proposal. If you don't agree with that, feel free to remove the resolved label and discuss more.(talk) 10:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
So you have to go back and forth between the discussion page and the main page to see what the resolution is. Tiresome. But simple. Warin61 (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Your usage explanation is unclear to me. This reation groups features, not "areas". Features have an identity on it's own (buildings, survey points, parking entrances). The part about areas which encircles a subset of the features has been moved to Proposed_features/Site_Perimeter since this is a new concept. The "old" perimeter role encircled the whole site, which went against "cannot be adequately described by an area/multipolygon".--Jojo4u (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. A features, such as a building, can be an area rather than a node or a way. I am trying to develop a simple description of an OSM relation - so far;


I'm on vacation for three weeks, after that the next RFC will follow.--Jojo4u (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm back.--Jojo4u (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Relations in OSM

This is the method OSM uses to connect two or more features in some way.

It consists of

  • objects (features) as 'members' of the relation,
  • these may have 'roles' in the relation.
  • one or more relation 'property/ies'.

The 'members' of a relation may be nodes, ways or areas.

The 'role' of a relation describes how that member is used by the relation with respect to the other members.

The 'property/ies' of a relation describes the type of relation and may include OSM properties e.g. name, opening hours, operator (

With more detail to follow. Unfortunately the 'properties' page does not follow what I expected to find there .. and is poor itself.