Thank you everyone. It is clear now that it is OK to have an area inside or overlapping another area. That is logical and contrary to what I had been told by another mapper. It may be the case that I misunderstood what they were saying. Cheers Andrew Parker
On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Andrew Harvey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:53, cleary <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Good mapping practice is to keep administrative boundaries such as state >> parks, conservation areas, suburbs etc separate from natural features such >> as water, waterways, woods etc. While they sometimes approximate, they >> rarely coincide exactly. >> >> Tagging a state park as natural=wood is usually inappropriate because >> there will, nearly always, be parts of the park that are unwooded. Best to >> map the park with its official boundary and then map the natural features >> separately using other unofficial sources such as survey and satellite >> imagery. >> > > Agreed, though as a rough first pass it has been common to tag > natural=wood on the administrative boundary if it's 90% correct, but > eventually as the mapping becomes more detailed separate natural=wood is > the way to go. > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
