Talk:Types of relations

collection

What about type=collection? I don't find it as approved/existing, neither do I find as rejected or obsolete. However, I see multiple instances. Especially Romanian embassies, and a border fence at South of Hungary. ITinerisKft (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

There's some documentation at Relations/Proposed/Collected Ways, although that seems to be more specific than some of the examples you're seeing. Looking at taginfo, there seem to be about ~1000 such relations, so it's not very common at the moment. A relation of Romanian embassies seems like it might be a case of relations are not categories, too. --Tordanik 20:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

This seems very much another duplication tag, which we should avoid. The right value should supposedly be type=site which gathers elements in a single entity. Presently this value is in more than 147000 relations vs. "collection" only about 1600 relations --SHARCRASH (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Site is ok if it is a site, but not all collections form a site. Generally, osm discourages the use of relations for collections (all of x in area y), but there is a usecase for situations where you want to tag the collection (you have properties like name and others for the ensemble of things). I would expect that relations type=group might fit frequently for entities that are "collections" (same kind of things, common name). --Dieterdreist (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Status

I add a status column, because some relations like site are in discussion and it think it's better to advertise the mappers. For restriction, i don't found relation discussion in Proposed features/Conditional restrictions and in Relation:restriction

For boundary, multipolygon, street may be it's too old. And at this time procedure with proposal voting may not exist. --APP3L initiation (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The status is pretty cool, what do you think about putting the proposals into tables, too.

Type	Status	Description	Comment
boundary segment	unknown	to group ways into a linear boundary	usage: 0, superseded by type=multilinestring
region	abandoned	Represents many hierarchies on the map like districts forming a city, etc	usage: 24, ...

Do you have an idea how we can get clear status of those relations that have no proposals? --Werner2101 (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The first version of Relation:restriction actually is written like a proposal: [1]. That's not the point, though. Back when somebody started this page, they used to say that relations don't have the proposal-vote-accept procedure at all. When a relation fulfils a need, and is to some extent widely used both by mappers and by at least some data consumer, it becomes an "establish relation" - just like with tags, really. In the tag pages the term has been "defacto approved". This hasn't changed. There are widely used relations, widely consumed relations, and relations that misuse the data type (Relations are not categories comes to mind first). These categories can, and do, partially overlap. The last two much smaller categories are "some uses but nobody else cares about them" and "proposed relations with little or no uses". Alv (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's ok that not all relations have a proposal. e.g. multipolygon and boundary is used a lot. But if you read down the list of proposals, it's very hard to find out whether a relation is used or not, or whether it has been replaced by other taggings. Using a status defacto approved for restriction, multipolygons, ... is fine. --Werner2101 (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

deprecating relation types

I'm wondering if we have a possibility to get rid of old relation types. Just like Creating a proposal is used to create new tagging.

I think we have to:

• discuss about why the relation is no longer needed or it's successor
• voting ?
• cleaning up the osm database
• marking proposals, wiki pages that contain information about the deprecated relations

e.g. the Relations/Proposed/Rivers with type=river is obsolete an no longer used.

type=relatedStreet is gone

The relatedStreet relation is no longer used in the osm database. I've cleaned up the last few relations and converted them into associatedStreet relations.

Any objections if I wipe out the relatedStreet entry from the table? --Werner2101 (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Removing links to proposals that are not used or having issues

There are some proposals that are not used or having issues. In the first section for instance

Relations/Proposed/Composite Tag often used where an attribute is for time or vehicle class restricted

superseded by Conditional restrictions

Relations/Proposed/Segmented Tag is used if a tag or a set of tags shall be applied to a part (segment) of a way

superseded by splitting ways

Relations/Proposed/Collected Ways for grouping ways into complete streets, rivers, railways etc.

obsoleted

Relations/Proposed/Dual carriageways for grouping adjacent ways forming opposite carriageways of a dual carriageway

status abandoned?

Relations/Proposed/Circuit for marking specific circuits for e.g. motor sports

unclear status, link to feature page more useful?

Relations/Proposed/Street for grouping ways into complete streets, as well as associating other elements with it

This is already linked to on the top.

Relations/Proposed/Curvature for specifying the curve and straight parts of a way

This page was last updated 2013!

Relations/Proposed/boundary_segment to group ways into a linear boundary

Incomplete proposal linking to the feature description page.

Relations/Proposed/toll for toll zones such as the London Congestion Charge

Page does not even exist, we do not need to propose proposals here.

And this was just the first section. I would like to remove the outdated, obsoleted, and rejected features. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 12:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but I didn't check those in detail except collected ways which should be replaced by multilinestring. --Fkv (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Sets of objects

I've used type=set for https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9498442 which is a series of nine related artworks, in close proximity. Is there a better type? Should we add "set" (or something equivalent) to the page? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Is type=site adequate in this case? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 20:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Merger with relation

I suggest that this page should be merged with Relation, that way all information specific to relations can be put in one place. Both pages are fairly short, especially if you exclude all of the proposed relation links, which are no longer relevant. Would anybody object to this change. ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not mind if the content is one one page or on two. However, the change should be applied to all translations. I think that the proposals are still relevant in case someone wants to start a new proposal. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 11:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikitext syntax of this page

What is the triple-brace notation, as in

{{{head:type|Type}}}

supposed to mean, and would anyone mind if I get rid of it? I'm quite familiar with wikitext syntax and this is the first time I encounter it outside of templates. It is not mentioned in w:Help:Wikitext either, except in the context of template parameters. Duja (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The page was created to work as a template to be used on translation pages, like with the "Map Features:" pages. With that parameter syntax you are able to transclude the English page like a template on a language page and override the content of the headers and table with translation strings. E.g.:

{{:Types of relations
|head:Established=Etablierte Relationen
|head:type=Typ
|head:status=Status
|head:element=Mitglieder
|head:desc=Beschreibung
|head:photo=Foto
|head:desc=Anzahl
...
}}

--Chris2map (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It was a template before, but then the whole template was pasted into this page without removing template syntax, so it shouldn't here, see Template talk:Relations. maro21 18:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I see. I suppose it would be OK for me to just remove it and switch to standard Wikitext, since it's unlikely to ever revert to the originally conceived functionality.

But while I'm at it, I'd actually like to merge it into Key:type where it belongs, and in turn merge most of its current contents (Key:type#Other uses and #Examples) into Key:*:type where they belong. Duja (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)