no map for relations and given reason

[dieterdreist]

If you filter for relations and go to the map tab, you get the warning: "Relations do not have a geographical location, so no map can be shown.". This isn't a valid explanation, because relations do have a geographical location, it is inherited / constructed from their members. They don't have coordinates, but neither have ways. If it is possible to show location information for ways, it would be possible also for relations. It might be too ressource intensive to show locations for relations, then this should be reflected in the warning, e.g. "We are sorry, we can't currently present a map for relations because the computation would be too expensive" or something similar.

[joto]

Unlike for ways, the geographical position/extent of a relation is somewhat complicated because it depends on the tags. It isn't clear to me how to show relations in a general and still useful way. And yes, it would also mean more processing needs to be done. I have changes the text a bit now.

[dieterdreist]

sent from a phone

On 21. Aug 2020, at 17:52, Jochen Topf ***@***.***> wrote: Unlike for ways, the geographical position/extent of a relation is somewhat complicated because it depends on the tags. It isn't clear to me how to show relations in a general and still useful way. And yes, it would also mean more processing needs to be done. I have changes the text a bit now.

there is no general way which makes sense for relations, some are very big (boundaries, etc.), but for others it would be possible: turn restrictions: via node for example. Given the very high scale of the image, for most sites and multipolygons a dot at the center would be perfectly ok and could show the spatial distribution.