Is it appropriate to designate things like sport fields and playgrounds, etc. as inner relations to parks and other areas?
It doesn’t seem entirely appropriate to me as it excludes those features from the area they are a part of, but I figure I should ask. It is my understanding that such relations are more appropriate for actual features of the landscape of an area rather than amenities that are a part of an area.
Any input is appreciated, thank you in advance!
I’m not clear what you are suggesting. The playing fields should not be relations unless they have holes.
They should not be inner members of a multipolygon, if they are part of the park, as the playing field is also park.
What other type of relation were you thinking about?
I wouldn’t use a multi-polygon relation to "cut out’ the playground from the park. The playground is part of the park. I would use it to “cut out” the playground from an enclosing area that is tagged e.g. as landuse=forest or landcover=trees
hadw & escada, you have answered my question precisely, thank you! And sorry for not replying back in here sooner.
To be specific, someone in the past (years ago) when they mapped a couple of parks had indeed “cut out” the ball fields, playgrounds, etc. from the parks; which to me seemed wrong and contradicted everything I’ve seen others around me do and everything that I have been doing when I map. I just wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing something before I went and changed anything, now that I’ve been reassured that I’m not crazy and it isn’t proper use of relations I will be making a correction to those parks. Thanks again 