Mike, Thanks for doing this! It sounds like a much bigger ordeal than I had originally thought.
-- Jim On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> wrote: > All, > > Since no objection to removing "natural=water" from the Lake Superior > relation has been expressed, I have removed it. I also amended the note on > the relation asking that it not be added back in. > > Mike > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 9:08 PM, David Fawcett <david.fawc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Inland sea... >> >> >> >> On Apr 25, 2015, at 8:19 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Am 24.04.2015 um 17:23 schrieb AJ Ashton <aj.ash...@gmail.com>: >> >> Yes, if Lake Superior is mapped as natural=coastline (which I think is >> the easier-to-maintain approach for such a large & complex water body) then >> we should remove natural=water from the multipolygon relation (r4039486). >> Does anyone have any objection to this? It's causing some noticeable >> rendering issues both in the standard style and for data consumers. >> >> >> >> yes, if the coastline tag remains it seems logical to remove the >> natural=water tag. Semantically the coastline tag on a freshwater lake is >> clearly wrong, but it seems to be an accepted compromise in this case: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline#What_about_lakes.3F >> >> >> cheers >> Martin >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-us mailing list >> talk...@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-us mailing list >> talk...@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > talk...@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca