On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 1:36 AM, Christoph Hormann <chris_horm...@gmx.de>
 wrote:

> On Sunday 10 May 2015, Mike Thompson wrote:
> > I am considering an edit involving "natural=coastline" involving the
> > Great Lakes that are shared between the US and Canada.  This has been
> > discussed on the Talk-US and Talk-Ca lists and there have been no
> > objections to date.
>
> As you know the Great Lakes have a right of continuance in being tagged
> as coastline however you should keep in mind that not having a
> multipolygon relation tagged natural=water representing these lakes
> also has disadvantages, and having relations/nodes tagged place=sea or
> place=lake is awkward and you can't really expect geocoders, renderers
> and other programs to make a special case here.
>
I don't have a strong preference for how they are represented
(natural=coastline or natural=water), but I believe the mix and incomplete
implementation of the two approaches is causing rendering issues.



> > Technical advice is welcome, e.g. how to easily find island ways that
> > go clockwise (water on the left)
>
> Yes, that's a tricky one - i don't think there are that many islands not
> yet tagged coastline though.

I have seen a number of them on the Canadian side.  Regardless of the
number, finding and editing all of them is going to be tedious and error
prone without a way to query for them. I can probably write something that
will operate on the file JOSM downloads that will check to make sure I have
fixed them all, but would like to leverage existing code as much as
possible.

>
>

>
> By the way even if the lakes are tagged as coastline tagging the
> US-Canada boundary within the lakes maritime=yes is not correct.
>
Good to know.  There actually appears to be two sets of ways in that area,
one set is part of the Canadian Lake Superior relation, and the other part
of the Canadian and US boundary relations.

Mike Thompson
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Reply via email to