Feature #2436
Updated by Alexander Watzinger about 1 month ago
Like discussed in the [[Meeting_2024-05-21|meeting]] and the [[Meeting_2024-12-19|meeting]] with Welterbe: A hierarchy for places would help a lot to structure place data, e.g. a forest exists which overlaps Because some features may encompass multiple other places and (areas) the places should be still places and not features of the forest. The question is how to deal with that. One possibility would be to allow multiple places as super for one sub. This should be possible from the technical and model perspective but we should think carefully about the implications and if they are worth these additions. Some thoughts about that, e.g. if we allow this "freely", e.g. over places, features, stratigraphic units, artifacts and human remains: * It won't be possible anymore to show this as a hierarchical visual presentation if there are multiple supers, especially if they are not on the same level. * There would always be the danger of recursive connections. Of course we can try to intercept them but at e.g. imports this can get really complicated and error prone. * If we want to implement checks that the geolocations of subs are really in the regions of their supers, this would get more complicate too * ... *Update November 2025* Current approach would However, I put this on the wishlist for now for further discussion. Also there might be to implement that places can be subs another solution for this specific request which don't require breaking out of other places. Although this won't solve overlapping multiple places it 1:n hierarchies which would still be very helpful with structuring places. complicate a lot.