+1 for separating out landcover and administrative boundaries into separate ways.
In practice it's often a good approximation to simply combine these, however once you want more accurate data they'll need to be separated out. On 17 December 2015 at 08:24, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi ... > I'm using LPI to tag National Park and State Forest boundaries and came > across some large "Inappropriately tagged areas". > Way 25968044tagged as Barrington Tops National Park, this area includes > National Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests. > Way 232137774 tagged as Myall State Forest, this area includes National > Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests. > Way169174227tagged as Blue Mountains National Park, this area includes > National Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests. > > They don't have a source, I have made comments on the first 2 changesets- no > response so far. > > They appear to be tracing forest areas from satellite imagery, as such I > think they would be best tagged as "landcover=trees, source=imagery" with no > name nor other identifying tags. They are all much much larger than their > name would suggest. > > The last one already has an encompassingRelation: 3550886 that has tag > 'natural=wood'. At least some of that area is State Forest that has pine > trees .. As an Ozie I don't call them 'natural' ... it is hair splitting but > I'd rather use 'landcover=trees'. :-) > > The first one carries a tag "layer=-5", I assume this is to suppress its > rendering or at least allow any other tagged there to over write it. I am > tempted to use the same tagging method on all three ways. > > Comments please? > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
