On 08/07/2013 10:19 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > On 06.08.2013 15:51, Yuri D'Elia wrote: >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/45.2466/6.0866 >> >> which has been tagged with a multipoligon relation. >> Unfortunately, the relation has some problems: >> >> - not rendered anywhere? > > This is a super-relation, with other relations as members. This is not > allowed for multipolygon relations. It should rather be a > type=collection relation. This is how water areas such as riverbanks use > to be joined, and I use collection relations for sets of rocks etc. too. > Don't expect dumb renderers like Mapnik to render superrelations, though.
Very good explaination. >> It seems to me that the closest tagging scheme might be a loose area >> with place=locality. Would that be a good idea? > > That depends on what the name belongs to. If it's the name of a lake, > forest, or other "physical" feature, place=* would be just wrong. After reading all the replies, it seems that if a group of lakes has a name, I would probably use either a multipolygon (if feasible) or a super-relation, with the appropriate natural tag. Though for places without actual physical attributes, place=location sounds reasonable. It also looks like that the ThunderForest maps are correctly rendering the place=location tag: http://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=11&lat=46.5215&lon=11.37205&layers=000B I will now convert this group to a super-relation. My issue with normal multipolygons is also that smaller, unnamed lakes inherit the name of the relation, which is incorrect. > These proposals are somewhat obsolete, as natural=* has widely been > accepted as the key for all geomorphological features. See > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural, group 3. A valley is > just the complement of a ridge or arete. Just draw a line along the > valley and tag it with natural=valley. I still have doubts about this. For the valley I'm speaking about the whole region, which is an area. By looking at your next pointer (about mountain_range), it looks like I can follow the same scheme and use region_type=valley as a subtype. >> Similarly, we have areas for entire mountain groups, which are >> fundamental for a topographic map in the alps. Again, the boundaries of >> such areas are not so important, but it's mostly used as an indication >> for the name placement. > > natural=mountain_range is already in use for the Alps. The mountain > groups within the Eastern Alps are tagged place=region, see the members > of relation 2113486. This has been incredibly helpful! I assume this is the data that is being used to render the topographic map at dianacht.de? (http://geo.dianacht.de/topo/) _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
