> Anders Torger <and...@torger.se> hat am 13.12.2020 15:28 geschrieben:
> 
> So what I've settled for (for now) is as follows:
> - same name on each part (the only way to get the data useful *today*)
> - a new relation with all parts as members (role unset), type=natural, 
> natural=wetland, name=<the name>

I am trying to understand what the issue is with the recommendation for mapping 
you have received from multiple sides here.

So what exactly is the verifiable knowledge that is supposed to be represented 
by your new relation type that is not already recorded in the mapping of 
physical features?

-- 
Christoph Hormann 
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Reply via email to