Template talk:Elements

I propose to change this template and initiated a discussion at Talk:Elements#Defining elements. --Tigerfell 👁 This user is member of the wiki team of OSM
(Let's talk) 10:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Error creating thumbnail:  Support --Dcapillae (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The links in the "semantic elements" row are inconsistent in English: "point" and "area" are nouns, while "linear features" is a noun phrase and "relational" is an adjective. Furthermore, the distinction between "relation" and "relational" is unclear. The terms "linear features" and "relational" are rarely used this way in OSM contexts. (I'm also having difficulty translating these links into a language that lacks a good word for "features" and doesn't distinguish between "relation" and "relational".)

This wiki doesn't discuss the semantic feature types very often, other than perhaps areas. If we're going to start with this template, I'd recommend using iD's user-facing terminology as a starting point, since it has been translated successfully into many languages:

 – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 10:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The Semantic elements page is about geometric elements in a more general way. You basically have a 1-dimensional element, a coordinate. Then, you can have an ordered collection of 1-dimensional elements, in some environments/markup languages referred to as line string. Thirdly, there is a 2-dimensional element, describing a polygon. Lastly, there is a collection of polygons to describe a set of polygons resembling an object. I tried to avoid any OSM terms because I am trying to make a connection between the general concept to be described on Semantic elements page and the very specific OSM elements. OSM relations mix up geometry (type=multipolygon) and relationships between objects (type=route). I am getting confused all the time, because I use OSM very often ;-). I need to think about this and I guess I should elaborate the semantic elements page first. --Tigerfell 👁 This user is member of the wiki team of OSM
(Let's talk) 14:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Not every relation type is clearly geometric. Some relation types are more abstract, like Relation:enforcement (interactions between objects that may be laid out geometrically), Relation:network (non-geometric collection of coordinated routes), and Relation:destination_sign (temporal sequence of maneuvers and signs). Relation types layer semantics atop the data model in the same way that "line" and "area" are interpretations of the raw elements. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 23:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, a semantic element is a geometry element : point, segment, line, triangle, square, rectangle, rhombus, circle, polygons are geometry elements. Area is not. In the template, for semantic elements, it is currently written : Point, Linear features, Area, Relational. Ok for point. Linear feature could be better : the true geometry of ways should be : polysegment. Area is completely false : area is not a geometry, the geometry for closed way is polygon. Relational doesn't exist nor relation : nothing fit (in a relation you may have nodes, ways and/or relations : a relation with only relations has no geometry so nothing fit). The true list for semantic elements should be : point, polysegment, polygon. Best regards - Fred73000 (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)