On 08/08/2013 11:54 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> I guess in this case I can simply re-use the geometry in a new relation >> with the proper valley name with type=multipolygon, place=region, >> region:type=valley? > > I'd use type=multipolygon natural=valley
I'm still not satisfied with type=multipolygon: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon#Detailed_tagging specifically: * The relation has tags: Use the relation tagging. Ignore anything on the ways. However, this is not what should happen for a lake group where each lake name is independent (ie, the group is just a topological feature). And, as I said before, unnamed lakes should not inherit the name of the group. After re-reading the whole thread, I tend to agree with fly more, as a boundary type seem to be much more appropriate: type=boundary boundary=topologic natural=water name=lake group name the boundary relation has the advantage of not requiring a fake polygon (as opposed to place=locality). I have two examples of type=multipolygon which I introduced: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/3126464 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/3126459 whole type=multipolygon relation simply broke the rendering (but renderers here seem to be compliant). _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging