Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
Port Philip Bay also doesn't seem to have a problem. Relation 1221199 -Original Message- From: talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Harvey Sent: Thursday, 21 October 2010 8:48 AM To: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water) Botany Bay had one single way for the outer way, wheras Port Hacking as serveral non-closed ways whose ends meet up for the outers. That could explain why they render different, but I don't think that is the reason. Because those bays I split off (eg Gunnamatta Bay) are just normal single closed way bays, and although the renderer seems to have moved the names to the centre of the newly created way from where the node was previously, they are not rendering blue. So I have no idea whats going on.. Could it be a coastline problem? On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Markus_g wrote: > I have noticed that Port Hacking still doesn't appear in blue on the Mapnik > Layer. Maybe natural=bay isn't supported as multipolygons. On the wikki it > only shows usage to be for nodes and ways. It doesn't make sense though that > it worked ok on Botany Bay. > > I had a look at world usage of natural=bay > > tag value uses node way relation > natural bay 15,286 15,029 240 17 > > Maybe it should be natural=water after all. > > Any ideas. > > Markus. > > -Original Message- > From: talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org > [mailto:talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Harvey > Sent: Wednesday, 20 October 2010 9:21 AM > To: OSM Australian Talk List > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water) > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Markus_g wrote: >> Well at the moment it isn't rendering correctly as there is no coastline >> across the entrance. > I see you've fix that now. > >> Well to be tagged as natural=water it should be a body of standing water, >> such as a lake or pond. >> >> To be tagged as natural=bay it should be an area of water mostly > surrounded >> or otherwise demarcated by land. Bays generally have calmer waters than > the >> surrounding sea, due to the surrounding land blocking some waves and often >> reducing winds. It can also be an inlet in a lake or pond. >> >> I think it should be a bay or coastline. >> >> If I am unsure I use the following source to decide, but others may have >> different reasons to tag certain ways. >> >> >> http://www.ga.gov.au/place-name/ >> >> >> It lists the feature code for Port Hacking as a bay. >> >> http://www.ga.gov.au/bin/gazd01?rec=78217# >> > > Okay, I'm happy with bay now. > > I've split off some of the other bays > (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6103886), I wasn't sure > if these should also form part of the mulitpolygon as well as outer. > > Also it seems the main boundary for Port Hacking is a way traced from > Yahoo, it is close to the ABS administrative boarder, I was wondering > if we should just place the Port Hacking boarder on the ABS boundary. > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
Botany Bay had one single way for the outer way, wheras Port Hacking as serveral non-closed ways whose ends meet up for the outers. That could explain why they render different, but I don't think that is the reason. Because those bays I split off (eg Gunnamatta Bay) are just normal single closed way bays, and although the renderer seems to have moved the names to the centre of the newly created way from where the node was previously, they are not rendering blue. So I have no idea whats going on.. Could it be a coastline problem? On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Markus_g wrote: > I have noticed that Port Hacking still doesn't appear in blue on the Mapnik > Layer. Maybe natural=bay isn't supported as multipolygons. On the wikki it > only shows usage to be for nodes and ways. It doesn't make sense though that > it worked ok on Botany Bay. > > I had a look at world usage of natural=bay > > tag value uses node way relation > natural bay 15,286 15,029 240 17 > > Maybe it should be natural=water after all. > > Any ideas. > > Markus. > > -Original Message- > From: talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org > [mailto:talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Harvey > Sent: Wednesday, 20 October 2010 9:21 AM > To: OSM Australian Talk List > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water) > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Markus_g wrote: >> Well at the moment it isn't rendering correctly as there is no coastline >> across the entrance. > I see you've fix that now. > >> Well to be tagged as natural=water it should be a body of standing water, >> such as a lake or pond. >> >> To be tagged as natural=bay it should be an area of water mostly > surrounded >> or otherwise demarcated by land. Bays generally have calmer waters than > the >> surrounding sea, due to the surrounding land blocking some waves and often >> reducing winds. It can also be an inlet in a lake or pond. >> >> I think it should be a bay or coastline. >> >> If I am unsure I use the following source to decide, but others may have >> different reasons to tag certain ways. >> >> >> http://www.ga.gov.au/place-name/ >> >> >> It lists the feature code for Port Hacking as a bay. >> >> http://www.ga.gov.au/bin/gazd01?rec=78217# >> > > Okay, I'm happy with bay now. > > I've split off some of the other bays > (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6103886), I wasn't sure > if these should also form part of the mulitpolygon as well as outer. > > Also it seems the main boundary for Port Hacking is a way traced from > Yahoo, it is close to the ABS administrative boarder, I was wondering > if we should just place the Port Hacking boarder on the ABS boundary. > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
I have noticed that Port Hacking still doesn't appear in blue on the Mapnik Layer. Maybe natural=bay isn't supported as multipolygons. On the wikki it only shows usage to be for nodes and ways. It doesn't make sense though that it worked ok on Botany Bay. I had a look at world usage of natural=bay tagvalue uses node way relation natural bay 15,286 15,029 240 17 Maybe it should be natural=water after all. Any ideas. Markus. -Original Message- From: talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Harvey Sent: Wednesday, 20 October 2010 9:21 AM To: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water) On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Markus_g wrote: > Well at the moment it isn't rendering correctly as there is no coastline > across the entrance. I see you've fix that now. > Well to be tagged as natural=water it should be a body of standing water, > such as a lake or pond. > > To be tagged as natural=bay it should be an area of water mostly surrounded > or otherwise demarcated by land. Bays generally have calmer waters than the > surrounding sea, due to the surrounding land blocking some waves and often > reducing winds. It can also be an inlet in a lake or pond. > > I think it should be a bay or coastline. > > If I am unsure I use the following source to decide, but others may have > different reasons to tag certain ways. > > > http://www.ga.gov.au/place-name/ > > > It lists the feature code for Port Hacking as a bay. > > http://www.ga.gov.au/bin/gazd01?rec=78217# > Okay, I'm happy with bay now. I've split off some of the other bays (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6103886), I wasn't sure if these should also form part of the mulitpolygon as well as outer. Also it seems the main boundary for Port Hacking is a way traced from Yahoo, it is close to the ABS administrative boarder, I was wondering if we should just place the Port Hacking boarder on the ABS boundary. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au