This is a static archive of our old OpenStreetMap Help Site. Please post any new questions and answers at community.osm.org.

Super-relation best practice

4
1

I need to reference the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, which consists of several components:

  1. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2644324
  2. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2644325
  3. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2644326
  4. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2644327
  5. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/359003045

I planned on creating a super-relation to reference the relations defined, above, and then removing the node reference.

I therefore created super-relation: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7152437

That super-relation is not, however, searchable in nominatim and the OSM web client does not highlight the underlying ways as one might expect. Consequently, I have not removed the node.

I would like to confirm that the super-relation node definition is acceptable and open this issue up to folks for recommendation*.

Thanks.

* e.g. remove the super-relation and associate the relation directly with the underlying ways - which could be argued loses topology information.

asked 12 Apr '17, 00:47

snodnipper's gravatar image

snodnipper
126459
accept rate: 0%


One Answer:

6

There is no established convention for super-relations. There are some programs that do something with relations of relations in some specialized cases, but there is no such thing as a generally defined and accepted "super relation" so there is no best-practice here.

answered 12 Apr '17, 08:28

Jochen%20Topf's gravatar image

Jochen Topf
5.2k55074
accept rate: 31%

edited 12 Apr '17, 08:28

I'll raise it as an issue with nominatim. I can imagine there could be issues with circular references with relations but in principle I believe super-relations should be searchable.

(12 Apr '17, 21:50) snodnipper

Source code available on GitHub .