I suspect this might be a mapping competence problem or possibly a problem
with the editing tool rather than intent to add incorrect information. It
appears to me that the intent might have been to map the area as a wood but it
has been mapped also as swamp (from the nearby relation).
I once created similar problem quite inadvertently. Depending on the editor
being used (I prefer Potlatch) relations type=multipolygon can go awry. When I
converted relations to type =boundary + boundary=natural, everything was much
better behaved and I could see what I was mapping. This might not be the
problem in this instance but, in the first instance, it appears to me that it
might be a problem in mapping relations.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2020, at 10:41 PM, Warin wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> There has been some remote mapping of the Diamond Beach area based on
> imagery and descriptive texts. Note the descriptive texts are copyright.
>
>
> My contention is that without going there or a correctly licensed source
> these things cannot be mapped with any certainty, particularly without
> local knowledge.
>
> Imagery alone is not enough.
>
>
> I refer to;
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80818669
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80810033
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80747704
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80736708
>
>
>
> I am afraid this mapper falls into the same category as a past remove
> mapper who mapped rocks as cliffs in the Snowys.
>
>
> My inclination is to remove these objects on the basis that they
> questionable on the stated sources and the lack of local knowledge of
> the mapper.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
