I have not examined each way for their use in other relationships ... I expect
some of them are.
In general I would prefer to separate the 'natural' relationships (woods, lakes
etc) from administrate ones
simply because any changes to one probably should not change the other.
And it would be
Recently I updated some information in OSM using data from South
Australian Suburb Boundaries and Conservation Reserve Boundaries but I
had inadvertently failed to note that the recent data was provided under
a CC-BY-4.0 licence that was not covered by the explicit permission we
had been granted
I don't recall that particular edit but I recall some edits of
administrative boundaries, including national parks and state forests
where I was trying to disentangle landcover from the administrative
boundaries, but I tried to leave the landcover or natural=wood areas as
closely as I could to
Hi,
I have noticed there are two relations with similar areas and both
tagged landuse=forest.
Relation5929494 created by down12under changeset 37053382 2/7/16 source given
as 'aerial imagery', later edited by cleary and TheSwavu.
Relation 5929493 created by down12under changeset 36918772
4 matches
Mail list logo
