User:Bigshot/Arsenale/relation:site
| Relation:site | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Draft (under way) |
| Proposed by: | Bigshot |
| Tagging: | type=site |
| Applies to: | relation |
| Definition: | Relation for representing with hierarchies generic areas settlements |
| Statistics: |
|
| Rendered as: | hidden with just a name label |
| Draft started: | 2012-09-03 |
| RFC start: | * |
| Vote start: | * |
| Vote end: | * |
This proposal introduces a way to represent many "is composed by" hierarchies on the map. It reaches this goal by defining very simple and general notion of site.
Rationale
There are often geographical entities consisting of sub-elements which are not always contained within a well-defined perimeter (schools, lagoons, airports, forests, industrial settlements, natural reserves, etc etc), other times it may happen that draw a general perimeter is redundant and excessive. To allow an easy access of these elements and maintain the map tidy i propose a redesign of the old and abbandoned proposal relation:site making it suitable to more generic use.
Relation Tags
| Key | Value | Note |
|---|---|---|
| type | site | |
| name | * | Name of the site |
| site:category | natural / human settlement | |
| site:type | school / park / ... | Specifies region type within the scope of defined region_category. For different region_categories there is different set of values. More here ... |
Relation Members
| Way or Node | Role | Recurrence? | Discussion |
|---|---|---|---|
 [1], 
|
boundary | one, this member is required | either simple closed path or Advanced multipolygon system to define more complex boundaries. |
 ,
|
center (or capital)[2] | one, this member is optional | What is the capital or center of this region. It can be anything from capital of the country to district town, or seat of Bishop in Diocese, depending on the region_type and region_category. |
|
|
subregion | any number of, optional | this would refer to other relation's region, which are subregions of this region having the same region_category.[3] |
Discussion
This is for discussion of udecided parts of proposal, its weak points and your ideas.
Please, please if you have any examples, ideas etc. let me know here or on the talk page.
- ↑ we may also decide that we require multipolygon here by default, or on the other hand we may allow Relation:boundary to be referenced as well
- ↑ please let me know what you thing is the best naming convention here
- ↑ There is a little contravesory about this. This information can be easily derived from looking for all regions of the same region_category which are not included in something which is itseld subregion. However for efficiency reasons, this would be probably too difficult to look up anytime the renderer (or anyone else) needs the information. However this information can be automatically generated by a computer bot.