@Polyglot:
The wiki on Site Relations says ‘use multi for schools’ (see one of the other recent diaries - I forget which one - for proper quote & url). That seems conclusive to me.

Site seems to have all the disadvantages & none of the advantages of Multi. So, what about them?

will_p:
Here is the link to where I found the info in my previous post:

• Map way/relation to area (map_to_area)

The main use case of this statement is to search for objects inside an area, which is again inside another area (“area in area query”)

An Overpass API internal area creation job does not ordinarily create links to areas-in-areas. Therefore, your previous link would not have worked for a site relation any more than it worked for my multipolygon relation. Therefore, folks can create interactive maps to their heart’s content with my so-called non-standard use of a multipolygon. They simply need to learn how to use the Overpass API correctly.

will_p:
It turned out that your Overpass Query was the problem. Here is a query that shows any of the way tags and, indeed, any of the node tags, directly when clicked on in the map; so much for non-standard:

rel(11028673);    
(._;>;);    
out;              // output relation
map_to_area;      // map OSM relation to Overpass API area by adding 3600000000 to its id    
(._;>;);    
out;              // output area 3611028673

Paste it into the Overpass window at https://overpass-turbo.eu/

will_p:
The school is now complete as best as I can manage (only Avenue - the entrance avenue - wants to be included, but a line within a multipolygon throws an error so I left it out).

Checking the Overpass-query again, none of the component tags show, either outer nor inner. That can be confirmed by clicking on the Tennis Courts (marked as outer since they are outside the formal Cadastre for Haileybury); only the Relation tags show if one of the Members is clicked. I do not know whether that is normal behaviour for every Relation or not.

will_p:

Alternatively let’s say someone creates an interactive map where people can click on features to show more information. In this case, clicking on the buildings (or other features tagged with the ‘inner’ role) won’t work if the multipolygon is correctly rendered. Here’s an Overpass query that shows this: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ThB. The tags are not displayed if you click, for example, on the Arboretum or most of the buildings.

That’s a useful tool.

I’m unsure whether your comment on lack-of-tags is due to the reason you give, as the Terrace Parking areas are tagged as ‘outer’ but still do not show any tags.

Here is Fernwood school: osm.org/relation/11026813 (a very simple relation holding 2 sites for the same school). Does a similar overpass query for that show the same symptoms? Only showing tags for the relation itself? Or is that because of the query used rather than the mapping method used?

Can you show me a situation where a Site relation allows components to be clicked on & show their tags? That would be a compelling demonstration.

Please realise Will that I am NOT trying to avoid what you are saying - quite the reverse. It is simply not enough to demonstrate that the method used does NOT work. It also needs for a different method to be shown that DOES work, else I will spend my time doing a headless chicken demonstration.

highflyer74:
> I would not use name=(unnamed) but rather not tag it at all.

Looked again at this after a sleep. Not the slightest doubt that you are right (very jarring). I’ve removed all such name-tags. Will upload together with other changes.

Howdy kucai

My answer is “yes”, but I suspect you may wish for more details.

In ordinary circumstances there are many people locked-down within restricted circumstances. A sequence of photographs along a route allows such people to more fully experience the nature of the place. I’ve had a small number of places where I’ve made such a sequence.

The more-usual driving sequences are intended for automatic derivation of traffic signs, etc.. I’m not involved in that.

Most of the 7k-odd photos that I’ve taken are PoI photos, intended to attach to PoI so that OSM map users can get a visual appreciation of a specific location. I’m looking for depth as well as breadth. They are also intended to lodge info for later use during mapping at the computer.

My main reason is so that I do not get lost whilst re-creating my survey on the computer. That is why I photo so many street-signs.

Hi highflyer74

The use of a “Parking” prefix (etc.) is deliberate. It is used so that humans can look down the list in the Relation & survey all the different Parking places (etc.) in one block (there are almost 100 members now).

The reason for the use of “(unnamed)” is to provoke someone to complete the mapping (possibly me if I can wangle an invite to photo the buildings). I’ll see how it sits with me after everything else has been entered.

Hi again, Will

Returning to this & re-reading (5th time, I think) the wiki page is this:

Sometimes other relations, especially multipolygon relations, have been added as members of a site relation. This can be difficult for database users to interpret, so it should be avoided where possible.

Site relations are typically not interpreted or used by database users such as map rendering or routing applications or any other software.

In many cases standard solutions, for example multipolygon relations, are a perfectly acceptable replacement.

In all honesty I read this as “PS Do not use a site relation”. The real killer is that maps will not render it.

Hello Will.

I’m always happy to receive help that is genuine. As it happens, I have already met & mentioned this particular feature before and have therefore consciously chosen the Multipolygon option over the Site option. Whether my choice was correct or not is another thing altogether, of course.

If you have a look at Option 3 (“3. Multi-site Schools should be placed within a MultiPolygon Relation”) of my School Intelligence Diary post you will see:

The obvious type of Relation would seem to be type=site, but even that wiki page says to use Multipolygon for schools

Now yes, that Diary post + the Wiki entry is talking about multi-site schools rather than a single site (as here and Heath school) with lots of items in the site. After the prompt of your comment I re-looked at this and now am not so sure. Nevertheless, it does seem to be working fine, and the Relation as currently defined is providing a good dictionary for all services available at the site in a way that should aid any human searching the site.

I did earlier with other schools try type=site & met so many problems that I re-read the Wiki entry and came across the sentence above. I therefore shrugged my shoulders and got used to using a poly for all schools. I understand your concern with the inner / outer designation, but consider this:

With this Imperial school I had a situation where I was trying to highlight that the Main Entrance was the Main Entrance (I did not initially spot that there were gates at each side of the oval). I labelled the grass as Main Entrance and thought that that would do it. On Uplift the system told me that The Boer War Memorial was wrongly designated & should be outer. I did that & it was fine. It was thus:

• Cadastre: outer
• Grass oval: inner
• Boer War Memorial: outer

That really did my head in! Still, it looked fine and grouped everything together without complaint, so I shrugged my shoulders again. Later I spotted the twin gates for each road either side of the oval. When added they were named as “Entrances”, so I removed the name on the Oval & the grass from the Relation. On uplift the system again complained and said that the Boer War Memorial should be inner. Another shoulder shrug & everything now is the way that you see it.

And yes, it is blooming annoying that nodes (the gates) each give a complaint, but they are accepted & show in a meaningful way on the map (why can gates not be mapped with a line?). I’m much more pragmatic than yourself, I think. Probably an age thing.

In the end I agree with you; it should be type=site rather than type=multipolygon. However, there are several days committed to this now, and I cannot stand the pain & time that would undoubtedly occur if I attempt to convert it. Plus, it works in what a Relation is supposed to be doing, and I do not know any practical advantages that such a conversion would achieve, nor any practical disadvantages that a multipolygon is causing.

@kucai:
Aha! Just met the perfect situation that can only be solved with a Relation:

Ivel Valley School has 2 sites on either side of Biggleswade:

• School campus, Hitchmead Road
• College campus, The Baulk

At the moment they are mapped independently in OSM, and it is difficult for anyone to get to the other campus, or even know that it exists. I’m about to move each campus into a Relation and presto! They will be related & feature within each other’s links.

Hi kucai.

Yeah, one of the very first things that I noticed within OSM was the antipathy of current mappers towards Relations. I was a database programmer, so it was different at my end. For users it makes little difference other than offering more links & inter-links to search with. And that, really, is the point, because without that Relation no inter-links become available.

It’s also called spam.

Your first PNG file (“irantweet”) gives a HTTP:410 (file gone) error. Others are also broken with - presumably - similar problems.

@GinaroZ:

You might want to fix the phone number value in osm.org/way/23367543 - the (0) should not be used, see the wiki.

I tried on my mobile to dial the number in that url. “+44 (0) 1158 500 843” became “+4401158500843” and was not then dialled. Bummer. I tried again with “+441158500843” and it was dialled. Double bummer.

Searching for “(0)” and removing it is a trivial programming effort, but you cannot reason with some folks (I know, being a programmer myself). I will go through those last 50+ entries & remove the “(0)”s, but it is the several thousand other that I worry about.

Thanks for the notification.

@GinaroZ: Worse than you think; every single number I’ve ever tagged is written like that. I’m tagging so that local national humans reading the Telephone number will be reminded to add a ‘0’ (zero) to the area-code if dialling by hand. Then the RFC says do NOT use spaces (use dashes), so it is worse than you think.

Sod it. Any decently written program should be able to parse my digits & dial it correctly, as can humans (no matter how doddery). Modems & MSDOS were able to parse it, so why not the supercomputers in our pockets?

@CjMalone: Thanks. That makes good sense to let it be auto-interpreted (all NG have full boundary relations, since I put them there).

@philippec: It takes far more than that to suppress me. But good to feel your support.

why isn’t OSM indexed by search engines? Why aren’t OSM POIs in search engine results?

Because the OSM map is deliberately de-listed due to concerns over server-load. There is a parable in the bible about hiding stuff, I believe…

The fact that the stuff that I add is not seen does diminish my enthusiasm. The evidence seems to be that others feel the same (lack of volume in daily mappers).

Fernwood School

Of course, it can be rendered (as the link above) but, as you say, “it’s excessively hard to see the contact details on osm.org”. Your suggestion for a response to taps/clicks on PoI is perfectly obvious.

I think that the main reason for little contact info is that there is zero acknowledgement for entering it (only one node will be recognised, even if 200 bits of info are entered into that one node). It has taken me 4 days to enter 40 changesets - hours & hours of work and, apparently, sod all result. The other main reason, I believe, is many folks in OSM are unable to place themselves into other people’s shoes. I was taught during sales’ training to teach myself to think in terms of what that person will want.

There is little point in having a map if it cannot serve up basic information.

@CjMalone: Thanks for this. I’m working my way through NG whilst in Covid-19 lockdown.

What is odd for me is that others do not routinely add contact details to PoI (or at least, not in the areas I’ve edited). A little bit of thought tells you that the main thing that visitors want from a map is links/telephone/etc..