On Friday 24 April 2015, Glen Barnes wrote: > > I think the notes are very easy to access and relate directly to the > layer in question. The tagging page clearly shows how we’ve mapped > each source field to the output and any transformations we have done > so it provides a good audit trail.
I am sorry i used misleading words - it is not difficult to access but it is a lot of work for someone who wants to review the tagging rules. For this purpose a table on the wiki is much easier. > I take your point on the yearly review. If you look at our notes you > will see that we did come up against inconsistencies in what the > tagging should be. I think at the time what we choose was considered > OK but there was an ongoing discussion about a new tagging scheme for > rivers and waterways. Now it would seem that we should be updating > the tagging to conform to the new tagging norms. Yes, traditionally you'd use waterway=riverbank for canal polygons which lacks the river/canal distinction but now you can use natural=water + water=canal. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
