I agree with your proposed action to separate the lake from the remainder of the river. Related to this is the question of whether riverbanks should be named. I would name a waterway and its relation but not a riverbank multipolygon. I would have thought that a search for "Murray River" would not be assisted by lots of water area multipolygons all named Murray River. I'm not sure what is best practice.
On Mon, 22 May 2023, at 4:09 PM, Little Maps wrote: > Hi folks, just checking to make sure I'm not missing something here... > > There's a large relation called 'Murray River' which covers all of Lake > Hume, plus an upstream section of the Murray. This is a natural=water > 'riverbank' relation, not a waterway relation. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8327459#map=11/-36.1129/147.3280 > > There's also another, nearly identical, relation called 'Lake Hume' > that covers Lake Hume only. This only covers the lake, not the river > upstream, and looks fine. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1531635#map=11/-36.0960/147.2417 > > Are there any objections if I severely truncate the Murray River > relation so it excludes Lake Hume, and includes only the river upstream > of Lake Hume, where it will join the eastern edge of the Lake Hume > relation? > > The southern arm of Lake Hume is fed by the Mitta Mitta not the Murray, > so calling the entire lake the Murray River is problematic. Again, this > relation covers the boundary of the lake, not the central waterway. > > Anything I'm missing here? Thanks again, Ian > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
