| Map_HeRo Mikke
January 20 |
OK I must have misunderstood you, shame on me … … so your suggestion is to place two nodes besides each other, one for the chimney (tower, mast …) and one for the antenna which then will get the additional communication tags?
two unrelated nodes would not be desirable, there is a node relation which would mean drawing one node for one of the objects (chimney) and having it as only member in a relation for the other object (as example). This could have a role like “attached_to”
Agreed, that was my concern - the proposed node relation would be a solution withouth doubt. Nevertheless I favour the tagging scheme described in the earlier quoted wiki pages - much simpler and yet covering the requirements of surley 99+% of all situations found OTG.
Nevertheless I favour the tagging scheme described in the earlier quoted wiki pages - much simpler and yet covering the requirements of surley 99+% of all situations found OTG.
it is the same situation as with buildings and their occupants/users, we’re mixing up objects (one feature one element), but “it works” nonetheless, up to a certain point where it breaks (becomes ambiguous or misleading or the model doesn’t allow to get the information one might desire to get).
Sure, but you also have to consider that simple solutions cause less mistakes. If you start using node relations for simple objects like a chimney with some communication gear on top you add complexity and increase the risk of tagging mistakes, specially by newcomers. So in some cases it could be well worth to go for a compromise between perfect tagging and a simple, pragmatical solution.
This is true as well. Another possibility would be to map the chimney as a polygon, and the antenna as a node of it (or similar).