> On Nov 11, 2019, at 6:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>
> I agree we should have a way to map both limits, upper and lower, for all
> kind of similar features, e.g. embankments, slopes, and similar.
> On Nov 11, 2019, at 7:40 PM, Volker Schmidt <vosc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have stood in front of these large levees that prevent big rivers from
> flooding the surrounding country side many times her in Italy and did not
> find a suitable tagging for both the top and the bottom border lines of the
I think it is pretty easy to make a “lower bounds” way or area (or both) that
compliments the existing man_made=embankment way.
To me, the problem is levees. After having mapped many KM of levees
(incorrectly), it is really really nice having the two pairs of embankments
make up the two halves of the levee, because it is easier and more flexible to
map the two slopes (which widen and narrow, split & merge, and disappear for
short sections), rather than trying to assume that the man_made=dyke centerline
way accurately shows the the “top” of the levee. the top varies by width from
something easily represented by way to something 50m wide in some places (as
linked to earlier). The =dyke way should represent the inner-most extent of the
high point of the levee (if it has a weird bulge in the top).
I made 2 sections of mapping examples on a simple section of levee along the
Tone River that has a levee breach repair station on top, so the levee is wider
here than normal. (for a short time).
a man_made=dyke (on the cycle path) with:
- two pairs of embankment lines ( man_made=embankment +
man_made=embankment_lower ) with a regular grass polygon sandwiched between it.
- Two regular embankment lines along the top with an area:man_made=embankment
polygon representing the slope (also tagged with grass).
Do you need a relation on them?
Any suggestions on improvements?
Tagging mailing list