On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 13:48, Andrew Harvey <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's a tricky one, and I would say there is no perfect solution here. > Going by the one feature, one OSM element guide > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element you can > rightly consider a single natural=beach for the whole length, but > simultaneously a different named beach for each named section. > Yep, that's one issue with it. What I did for Bate Bate, in Cronulla, NSW was to split into sections and > have a natural=beach for each section, eg > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-34.0444/151.1637. They are drawn > as different ways but shared/snapped nodes where they meet. > Which is what I was thinking, with the other option being delete the name from the full beach & just add named beach nodes to each separate area. There are other possible solutions with multipolygons or relations, > Scary stuff! :-) but I think overall just doing each section as a new way with natural=beach > and it's own name is best. > That may be the neatest way - just delete the whole thing & re-do it all. In iD you can add nodes along the way and split it, unfortunately iD tries > to be too smart and ends up converting it to a multipolygon relation, which > you then need to remove and retain the tags on the way. JOSM works much > better in this regard, but it's still possible, just messy to do in iD. You > can turn off Boundaries under Map Data > Map Features which unclutters the > map a bit more (though some ways you won't be able to move). > I've given it a go by doing this & you're right, it's messy with hiding boundaries, then un-hiding them so you can fix the alignment. I'll check to see how it looks tomorrow after things have updated & find out if I've broken anything! The delete & re-do is certainly sounding the easiest way atm! Thanks Graeme
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
