Thank you both. That's very helpful. On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 22:25, Dave F <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi > > Short answer: Yes > > There's a few problems here: > > Relations should not be used to collect thing together. > There shouldn't be tags on the ways which conflict with those in the > relations > MP relations require a 'type' tags and 'inners' & 'outers' roles > In this case the Southern section shouldn't be a polygon > MP relations should be restricted to the areas which have inners: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2571440#map=19/51.15275/-2.05045 > The Islet, in this case, isn't included in the relation. > There are no defined 'outers' > There should be a complimentary tag to natural=water, such as > water=stream/river etc. > > Cheers > DaveF > > > > On 19/09/2018 01:35, Jem wrote: > > Is there any problem with defining a water feature that is a mix of > polygons & lines? e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6447531 > > Should it be fixed, or is it ok? > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing > [email protected]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
