[Tagging] Modelling the relation between a waterstream and one of its resurgence

2015-09-09 Thread David Marchal
Hello, there. I wondered: when a waterstream is known to be, instead of a real, separated waterstream, merely a resurgence of another one, how should the link between them be modelled? Which tags should I use, and in which relation? Should I tag the resurgence by itself? Hoping you can help,

Re: [Tagging] Modelling the relation between a waterstream and one of its resurgence

2015-09-09 Thread Richard
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:55:44AM +0200, David Marchal wrote: > Hello, there. > I wondered: when a waterstream is known to be, instead of a real, separated > waterstream, merely a resurgence of another one, how should the link between > them be modelled? Which tags should I use, and in which

Re: [Tagging] Modelling the relation between a waterstream and one of its resurgence

2015-09-09 Thread Jo
I would say that we need a new type of relation for that. Jo 2015-09-09 17:25 GMT+02:00 David Marchal : > > map the underground stream if possible. > > As I don't know where the intake from the first stream is, I think I can't > map it this way. Besides, wouldn't that make the

Re: [Tagging] Modelling the relation between a waterstream and one of its resurgence

2015-09-09 Thread David Marchal
> map the underground stream if possible. As I don't know where the intake from the first stream is, I think I can't map it this way. Besides, wouldn't that make the link exclusive, i.e. tell that the water only comes from one point and exits at another? If so, I can't either, as no-one can be

Re: [Tagging] Handle with care (was: Accuracy of survey)

2015-09-09 Thread André Pirard
On 2014-12-29 15:27, Kotya Karapetyan wrote : Happy holidays and 2015 everyone! > what is needed here is some tag, saying "don't touch these > coordinates, they've been surveyed with high(est)

Re: [Tagging] Modelling the relation between a waterstream and one of its resurgence

2015-09-09 Thread David Marchal
> Which is why mapping this is not really within the scope of OSM - > natural underground waterflows are inherently non-verifiable. Well, maybe I should let that down, then, or put the data in the description field; this way, I won't mess with the OSM data, but they'll be there if someone is

Re: [Tagging] Modelling the relation between a waterstream and one of its resurgence

2015-09-09 Thread Christoph Hormann
On Wednesday 09 September 2015, David Marchal wrote: > > As I don't know where the intake from the first stream is, I think I > can't map it this way. Besides, wouldn't that make the link > exclusive, i.e. tell that the water only comes from one point and > exits at another? If so, I can't either,

Re: [Tagging] Handle with care (was: Accuracy of survey)

2015-09-09 Thread moltonel
On 9 September 2015 21:46:54 GMT+01:00, "André Pirard" wrote: >There are various reasons for warning other mappers to be careful about >their updates. >I once temporarily overlaid two walking routes to show the effect of >displaying two sorts of icons. >Or I left in