> I really love the top-lines of the embankments, as these embankment tops are > not uniform in shape - but I will delete them if it is bad tagging.
It's not bad tagging, you should keep these. (make sure that the lower side is on the right hand of way direction) > would there be some advantage to putting it [man_made=dyke line] and the > embankments into a relation It isn't necessary OSM relations for things that can be determined by the database users just by looking at the spacial relationship between two features. In this case, database users could look for man_made=dyke ways which are roughly parallel and close to a man_made=embankment way. > man_made=dyke way shows the path, and man_made=dyke on a polygon shows the > extent ... similar to how natural=river is used We use two tags for rivers: `waterway=riverbank` (or natural=water + water=river) for the area and waterway=river for the central line of the river. If you want to do this, you need a different tag for the area. My suggestion was area:man_made=dyke, in analogy to area:highway, but man_made=dyke_area or =embankment_area would work, or any other new tag with a clear meaning. On 11/11/19, John Willis <jo...@mac.com> wrote: > > >> On Nov 11, 2019, at 11:16 AM, Joseph Eisenberg >> <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> "it should be tagged on a way drawn with the lower side on right side >> of way direction" - Tag:man_made=embankment > > for some reason, I remember reading documentation about using a pair of > embankment lines to denote the extent of the embankment, using the direction > of their ways as an indicator. I didn’t come up with that on my own. this > was during the embankment=yes => man_made=embankment change. > > - I really love the top-lines of the embankments, as these embankment tops > are not uniform in shape - but I will delete them if it is bad tagging. > > - if I delete the “top” lines of the embankments, and use the man_made=dyke > as the center of the summit of the levee, would there be some advantage to > putting it and the embankments into a relation for possible better rendering > of their extent (shading, hashes, etc)?. > > - Because the levees vary wildly in shape on the top, sometimes widening for > a short area to 50-100m wide, would repurposing the top-line embankment ways > as mapped to tagged with some kind-of “riverbank-style” tag, where the > man_made=dyke way shows the path, and man_made=dyke on a polygon shows the > extent, similar to how natural=river is used now? for smaller levees, this > detail is unnecessary, but for such large features used by so many people, > the detail would be nice. it is very easy to map their extents, especially > since I am doing the mapping via ground survey on a bike 70-100km at a > time. > > examples of the levee top widening for a short space, usually for levee > break emergency repair stations (large caches of breakwater blocks with > helicopter/crane hooks, stationed above the flood zone on top of the levee). > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/36.30063/139.51192 > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/36.30063/139.51192> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/36.26097/139.63921 > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/36.26097/139.63921> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/35.97705/139.89813 > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/35.97705/139.89813> > > I really want to map the levees in as much detail as I can, as detail often > helps with map interpretation (at high zoom levels) while travelling along > the levees by car or bike, but few people seem to be interested in them. > > > Javbw _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
