Lennard, I (now) understand that features are discussed on the wiki but decision are taken on Tagging list. Am I right ?-)
I'll write a note on the wiki water_content page, what else should I do to make things properly? Daniel -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lennard Sent: 26 août 2010 14:21 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] [OpenStreetMap] #3188: Coastal intermittent water representation - Canvec On 26-8-2010 20:02, Bégin, Daniel wrote: > Well, what can I say? > > the Canadian community agreed on using water_cover proposal almost a year ago > and the entire canadian contry is now available in .osm format using this > proposal... > > What do you think? I'm fine with either schema. We can always retag our NL stuff, so that's not a factor. As far as mapnik is concerned, it also makes no difference either way. It currently treats all natural=wetland the same, so that's not ideal either. Better support for these tags is needed for both tagging schemes. It's just that I was under the impression that wetland=* had won out over water_cover, not just on the wiki (but who reads that thing? :)) and also in practice. A note on the water_cover wiki page that the tagging has been adopted for the CanVec conversion and will start to appear in OSM shortly might be helpful. I don't remember, but has this been on the lists? -- Lennard _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
