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 <[email protected]> wrote: > Inland sea... > > > > On Apr 25, 2015, at 8:19 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > Am 24.04.2015 um 17:23 schrieb AJ Ashton <[email protected]>: > > 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
