On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Nathan Edgars II <nerou...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Ian Dees <ian.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Nathan Edgars II <nerou...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> I'm importing the USFS data for the Ocala National Forest boundary. > >> There's the actual forest boundary, and there are private inholdings > >> inside the boundary that are not owned by the USFS. For flexibility, > >> I'm making a multipolygon for each. But which one is the "real" > >> boundary? What tags go on each? > > > > You're creating separate multipolygons for each of the private > inholdings? > > You should be creating one multipolygon with several internal ring ways > as > > "inner" members of the multipolygon relation. The whole multipolygon > > relation should have whatever tags you've decided on and the member ways > > should not have any tags. > > That's what I'm doing. But I then have two multipolygons: one for the > "forest boundary" and one for this boundary minus the inholdings. The > difference is nontrivial, since some of the inholdings go right up to > the "forest boundary", implying that the forest actually in some way > includes these inholdings. > Are you manufacturing the "forest boundary" outer ring or is it coming from the shapefile? I don't think you should imply that there is a "natural=forest" boundary logically separate from the National Forest's boundary. Assuming you're using USFS's shapefiles, there should be one thing in there: the boundary of the national forest. If there are "holes in the forest" anywhere (including directly on the external border), then they should be inner polygons of a multipolygon.
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
