Jim, You are welcome, but I don't think we are out of the woods yet. Overnight the NE end of Isle Royal became "flooded" at zoom level 13,
As someone else pointed out, there are two relations for Lake Superior. One covers the entire lake (at least in spatial extent), and the other only covers the Canadian side. I only removed "natural=water" from the first relation. The Canadian relation still has it. Not every member of the Canadian relation has "natural=coastline" (mainly islands). Some of the ways go the wrong way (i.e. land on the right). Proposed Course of action. 1) Download Canadian Lake Superior relation and all its members to JOSM. 2) Make sure every individual member way is tagged "natural=coastline" (except the way(s) that form the boundary between Canada and the US. 3) Make sure every individual way has land on the left. (except the US Canadian border that runs through the lake). 4) Remove "natural=water" from the Canadian relation 5) Upload. === Later === 6) Make sure all members of the Canadian relation appear in the overall relation (or that their purpose is filled my some other member(s) of the overall relation. 7) Delete the Canadian relation. All, Please provide comments on the above course of action. Advice and guidance is welcome. Mike Mike On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Jim McAndrew <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[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 >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
