I would like to know if a relation of surveillance cameras in my city is convenient or not in OSM. I understand that relations are not categories in OSM. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations_are_not_categories
I would appreciate your opinions in this topic.
Met.
Surely not. When some cameras are interlinked city-wide, they may be related by operator=, owner=, etc. If there’s a publicized name for the system and web, I may imagine attempting brand= (referring to the surveillance programme, not the equipment’s model= and manufacturer) and network= on them.
Inside a facility, cameras would be already closely associated spatially by an area. type=site is only used when the area is insufficient for complicated 3D overlapping cases.
When you can identify its purpose and jurisdiction, you could possibly use viz type=enforcement + enforcement=access for security cameras guarding an access point or obstacle. So far this is basically used to monitor vehicles entering an road, but there doesn’t seem to be a reason prevent more general cases.