Classification relations

General talk
1

There are currently 3 type=classification relations, all of which are violations of Relations are not categories - OpenStreetMap Wiki.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2110291
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2113486
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18457290

What do we do with them?

1 Like
2

This seems more complicated that what you thought from the type= alone. They are showing how those organizations organizes the mountains.
They contain boundary=place + place=region + reigon:type=mountain_area , and forums was cited Bezeichnung von GebirgszĂĽgen
It’s akin to constructing the extent of Alps from the subregions?
However, there’s already ref:*= indeed, for the Not Categories concern. Storing the numbers in roles is a broken data format.

3

Looking at relation 2113486 it seems that all the members already have a ref:aveo=* tag that matches the relation’s role in the parent relation. Would it be better to document this ref tag on the Wiki and then delete the parent relation?

4

Can the type=classification be a type=boundary + boundary=place as a superregion though? Bezeichnung von GebirgszĂĽgen - #69 by aighes
However at the same time, it seems to be mentioned as an import? I don’t understand what are the duplicates, that would make it bad.