On 2014-02-19 23:44, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Ronny Ager-Wick <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, Pierre.
Actually, I tagged the relation both with natural=water, water=river and
waterway=riverbank as advised in the wiki (see New Tagging) I assume
this is the recommended way to do it?
When I trace new rivers polygons, I now use natural=water + water=river for
the closed way/multipolygon relation. This tagging makes much more sense
than waterway=riverbank, wherein you sometimes have a way crossing across
the river to close the polygon but the crossing part is not a riverbank.
Yes, that makes sense, I assume that's why they made the new tag. Not sure if
I should remove the old tag yet though - is the new one rendered everywhere?
And you reminded me of another thing there. I noticed that a previous
contributor made a small polygon on both sides of a bridge, but as I made
polygons for the entire river, I joined them under the bridge so that the
river multipolygon is continuous. My thought was, it's layer=-1, so it'll
appear below the bridge anyway, and it's not like the river stops on each side
of the bridge - it still runs under it. I feel making river polygons complete,
including under bridges and dams, makes the most sense.
_______________________________________________
talk-ph mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
