Thank you everyone. It is clear now that it is OK to have an area inside or
overlapping another area. That is logical and contrary to what I had been
told by another mapper. It may be the case that I misunderstood what they
were saying.
Cheers
Andrew Parker
On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Andrew
Our mappers "map what's on the ground" and use "one feature, one OSM
element". I agree as OSM matures and the detail of these remote areas is
surveyed, we should be distinctly mapping natural features vs
administrative boundaries as separate entities. I've helped with detailing
natural areas in
Cheers Andrew :)
If you're interested in some trying some advanced mapping techniques, check
out:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon_Examples#Forest_.28One_closed_way.29
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon#Touching_inner_rings
Welcome to the mind-melting
Hi,
we had a case in Europe where tons of more or less invented
(auto-generated) Russian names were added by a Russian who was playing a
computer game that was using OSM maps and they wanted a nicer map display ;)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09"
Picking just Adam's question about mapping after a fire. [I also very
much support the idea that OSM ways should ideally have only one primary
tag and so agree that natural and boundary does not go together.]
I went through a similar self-dialogue where I am now in Sweden as to
what to with
>> RE: Also towards the SA border there are other treed areas that have been
>> very carefully traced out. Yet traditionally the whole area is set with the
>> fence lines and tracks then marked on top. Not necessarily wrong, but
>> tracing the exact line of where the trees finish and the road
Regarding bushfires, some tagging syntax was discussed at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:natural%3Dwood#Burned_Woodland
a few years ago.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
A bit late to the party on this one. But a couple of observations follow
up Graeme's 2012-10-03 point about the myriad of "You can ride on a
footpath if" exceptions and how to deal with them.
1) I suggest rigorously using and making synonymous footway=sidewalk [1]
with what are clearly and
8 matches
Mail list logo
