|
A local park has been made as a relation with the playgrounds within as inners. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7236072 I'm new here but isn't that unnecessary and exclude them from the park? Should the three areas instead be joined as one multipolygon playground and the pieces of equipment added? [edit] I don't seem to be able to add comments on this question. I was thinking of a multipolygon for the bits that were rubber crumb but perhaps that's a poor way to show that (and the existing shapes don't match that anyway). Thanks both for answers. |
|
I agree it's unnecessary to exclude the playgrounds from the park. Some argue that you should do that whenever two objects of the same main key ("leisure" in this case) overlap but I can't really see why. In my eyes the playgrounds are part of the park. I wouldn't join the three patches into another multipolygon, either. From what I can gather from the aerials I would just map one big playground there. Of course you can also map individual equipment either way. |
|
There is no reason to do this whatsoever. For instance it makes queries such as "show me all the playgrounds in parks" fail. It's much harder to understand and likely to confuse inexperienced editors. It imposes additional processing for data consumers. If a park has opening hours these cannot be easily inherited by the playground. This type of thing is usually explained as making it easier for data consumers: which is nearly always untrue. Firstly, not everyone does it this way, so it introduces an '''additional''' case for a consumer to process. Secondly, landuse nearly always needs additional processing anyway for a given use case, so trying to second guess a host of use cases is a bad idea. Thirdly, overlapping (and indeed underlapping) landuse polygons are extremely common. In general processing these is reasonably well understood, albeit a little tedious in terms of steps. |
