Re: [talk-au] Basic question

[Warin]

On 8/10/21 17:41, Andrew & Ingrid Parker wrote:
Thank you everyone. It is clear now that it is OK to have an area 
inside or overlapping another area. That is logical and contrary to 
what I had been told by another mapper. It may be the case that I 
misunderstood what they were saying.



Usually the last part - "misunderstood what they were saying" is the 
largest part of the problem.



My take;

 landuse=forest does not denote trees but the human use of the land to 
get timber.


natural=wood = trees exist here! Note 'natural' does not, in OSM terms' 
exclude human intervention. So if it is planted, maintained, etc by 
humans then it is still ok to tag 'natural=wood'.



An example is where a tree area overlaps both a state forest and farm 
land. The tree area can be drawn as one area. While the farm and state 
forest can be separate areas overlapped by the tree area.



What you should not do is overlap areas of land covers such as grass and 
trees, or sand and trees. And similarly for land use - farm and 
industrial for example.




Cheers
Andrew Parker

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Andrew Harvey  
wrote:




On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:53, cleary  wrote:


Good mapping practice is to keep administrative boundaries
such as state parks, conservation areas, suburbs etc separate
from natural features such as water, waterways, woods etc. 
While they sometimes approximate, they rarely coincide exactly.

Tagging a state park as natural=wood is usually inappropriate
because there will, nearly always, be parts of the park that
are unwooded.  Best to map the park with its official boundary
and then map the natural features separately using other
unofficial sources such as survey and satellite imagery.


Agreed, though as a rough first pass it has been common to tag
natural=wood on the administrative boundary if it's 90% correct,
but eventually as the mapping becomes more detailed separate
natural=wood is the way to go.



In some parts it has been applied where trees <70%... It was done when 
national parks had no rendering .. tagging for the render. Today I think 
the ktree tags should be removed from all admin boundaries.. but that is 
just me.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Basic question

[Brendan Barnes]

Cheers Andrew :)

If you're interested in some trying some advanced mapping techniques, check
out:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon_Examples#Forest_.28One_closed_way.29
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon#Touching_inner_rings

Welcome to the mind-melting world of advanced multipolygons :D


On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 17:48, Andrew & Ingrid Parker 
wrote:

> Thank you everyone. It is clear now that it is OK to have an area inside
> or overlapping another area. That is logical and contrary to what I had
> been told by another mapper. It may be the case that I misunderstood what
> they were saying.
> Cheers
> Andrew Parker
>
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:53, cleary  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Good mapping practice is to keep administrative boundaries such as state
>>> parks, conservation areas, suburbs etc separate from natural features such
>>> as water, waterways, woods etc.  While they sometimes approximate, they
>>> rarely coincide exactly.
>>>
>>> Tagging a state park as natural=wood is usually inappropriate because
>>> there will, nearly always, be parts of the park that are unwooded.  Best to
>>> map the park with its official boundary and then map the natural features
>>> separately using other unofficial sources such as survey and satellite
>>> imagery.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed, though as a rough first pass it has been common to tag
>> natural=wood on the administrative boundary if it's 90% correct, but
>> eventually as the mapping becomes more detailed separate natural=wood is
>> the way to go.
>> ___
>> 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
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Basic question

[Andrew & Ingrid Parker]

Thank you everyone. It is clear now that it is OK to have an area inside or
overlapping another area. That is logical and contrary to what I had been
told by another mapper. It may be the case that I misunderstood what they
were saying.
Cheers
Andrew Parker

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:53, cleary  wrote:
>
>>
>> Good mapping practice is to keep administrative boundaries such as state
>> parks, conservation areas, suburbs etc separate from natural features such
>> as water, waterways, woods etc.  While they sometimes approximate, they
>> rarely coincide exactly.
>>
>> Tagging a state park as natural=wood is usually inappropriate because
>> there will, nearly always, be parts of the park that are unwooded.  Best to
>> map the park with its official boundary and then map the natural features
>> separately using other unofficial sources such as survey and satellite
>> imagery.
>>
>
> Agreed, though as a rough first pass it has been common to tag
> natural=wood on the administrative boundary if it's 90% correct, but
> eventually as the mapping becomes more detailed separate natural=wood is
> the way to go.
> ___
> 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

Re: [talk-au] Basic question

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:53, cleary  wrote:

>
> Good mapping practice is to keep administrative boundaries such as state
> parks, conservation areas, suburbs etc separate from natural features such
> as water, waterways, woods etc.  While they sometimes approximate, they
> rarely coincide exactly.
>
> Tagging a state park as natural=wood is usually inappropriate because
> there will, nearly always, be parts of the park that are unwooded.  Best to
> map the park with its official boundary and then map the natural features
> separately using other unofficial sources such as survey and satellite
> imagery.
>

Agreed, though as a rough first pass it has been common to tag natural=wood
on the administrative boundary if it's 90% correct, but eventually as the
mapping becomes more detailed separate natural=wood is the way to go.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Basic question

[Adam Horan]

Yep,
although you do see lots of natural=wood and natural=water overlapping. I
usually see this as a temporary hack until someone wants to put in the
effort of creating a relation with a hole in it and moving the tags there.

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:52, Sam Wilson  wrote:

> Yes, good point. And equally, it'd be unlikely for natural=wood and
> natural=scrub to overlap.
> On 8/10/21 8:36 am, Adam Horan wrote:
>
> That's probably a good rule of thumb, although with the addition of same
> type and 'level'.
>
> Admin boundaries overlap and nest all the time, but you wouldn't normally
> expect two of the same type and level to overlap.
> LGA within State within Country etc
>
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:31, Sam Wilson  wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that areas should not overlap only where they are of
>> a similar type. Areas of natural=wood and boundary=national_park aren't
>> similar and so it's fine for them to overlap.
>> On 8/10/21 6:25 am, Adam Horan via Talk-au wrote:
>>
>> "Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a forested area
>> are not the same."
>>
>> I'd say that this is common and expected, and should be handled with
>> separate areas.
>>
>> I feel it's very much the old style of mapping to put 'natural=wood' on a
>> park admin boundary.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 08:38,  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>> If you were told this by changeset comment, can you give the URL?
>>> Tony
>>>
>>> > Hi everyone
>>> > I am a basic OSM editor. I usually just correct obvious map errors I
>>> find
>>> > while hiking/cycling. I have tried to be a little more ambitious every
>>> now
>>> > and then, but I have found it can be quite difficult to keep other
>>> editors
>>> > happy with what I do.
>>> >
>>> > My question is: Can you have overlapping 'areas'? I was told by
>>> someone in
>>> > this group that you can't.
>>> >
>>> > For example; Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a
>>> > forested area are not the same. This is the issue where I was told
>>> that you
>>> > can't do that.
>>> > This makes no logical sense to me as this happens all the time.
>>> >
>>> > I would appreciate some guidance on this issue.
>>> > Kind regards
>>> > Andrew Parker
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing 
>> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [talk-au] Basic question

[Sam Wilson]

Yes, good point. And equally, it'd be unlikely for natural=wood and 
natural=scrub to overlap.


On 8/10/21 8:36 am, Adam Horan wrote:
That's probably a good rule of thumb, although with the addition of 
same type and 'level'.


Admin boundaries overlap and nest all the time, but you wouldn't 
normally expect two of the same type and level to overlap.

LGA within State within Country etc

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:31, Sam Wilson > wrote:


My understanding is that areas should not overlap only where they
are of a similar type. Areas of natural=wood and
boundary=national_park aren't similar and so it's fine for them to
overlap.

On 8/10/21 6:25 am, Adam Horan via Talk-au wrote:

"Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a
forested area are not the same."

I'd say that this is common and expected, and should be handled
with separate areas.

I feel it's very much the old style of mapping to put
'natural=wood' on a park admin boundary.

Adam


On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 08:38, mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au>> wrote:

Hi
If you were told this by changeset comment, can you give the URL?
Tony

> Hi everyone
> I am a basic OSM editor. I usually just correct obvious map
errors I find
> while hiking/cycling. I have tried to be a little more
ambitious every now
> and then, but I have found it can be quite difficult to
keep other editors
> happy with what I do.
>
> My question is: Can you have overlapping 'areas'? I was
told by someone in
> this group that you can't.
>
> For example; Where something like the boundaries of a State
Park and a
> forested area are not the same. This is the issue where I
was told that you
> can't do that.
> This makes no logical sense to me as this happens all the time.
>
> I would appreciate some guidance on this issue.
> Kind regards
> Andrew Parker
>





___
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  


___
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

Re: [talk-au] Basic question

[cleary]

Good mapping practice is to keep administrative boundaries such as state parks, 
conservation areas, suburbs etc separate from natural features such as water, 
waterways, woods etc.  While they sometimes approximate, they rarely coincide 
exactly.  

Tagging a state park as natural=wood is usually inappropriate because there 
will, nearly always, be parts of the park that are unwooded.  Best to map the 
park with its official boundary and then map the natural features separately 
using other unofficial sources such as survey and satellite imagery.




On Fri, 8 Oct 2021, at 7:59 AM, Andrew & Ingrid Parker wrote:
> Hi everyone
> I am a basic OSM editor. I usually just correct obvious map errors I 
> find while hiking/cycling. I have tried to be a little more ambitious 
> every now and then, but I have found it can be quite difficult to keep 
> other editors happy with what I do.
>
> My question is: Can you have overlapping 'areas'? I was told by someone 
> in this group that you can't.
>
> For example; Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a 
> forested area are not the same. This is the issue where I was told that 
> you can't do that. 
> This makes no logical sense to me as this happens all the time.
>
> I would appreciate some guidance on this issue.
> Kind regards
> Andrew Parker
> ___
> 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

Re: [talk-au] Basic question

[Adam Horan]

That's probably a good rule of thumb, although with the addition of same
type and 'level'.

Admin boundaries overlap and nest all the time, but you wouldn't normally
expect two of the same type and level to overlap.
LGA within State within Country etc

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:31, Sam Wilson  wrote:

> My understanding is that areas should not overlap only where they are of a
> similar type. Areas of natural=wood and boundary=national_park aren't
> similar and so it's fine for them to overlap.
> On 8/10/21 6:25 am, Adam Horan via Talk-au wrote:
>
> "Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a forested area
> are not the same."
>
> I'd say that this is common and expected, and should be handled with
> separate areas.
>
> I feel it's very much the old style of mapping to put 'natural=wood' on a
> park admin boundary.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 08:38,  wrote:
>
>> Hi
>> If you were told this by changeset comment, can you give the URL?
>> Tony
>>
>> > Hi everyone
>> > I am a basic OSM editor. I usually just correct obvious map errors I
>> find
>> > while hiking/cycling. I have tried to be a little more ambitious every
>> now
>> > and then, but I have found it can be quite difficult to keep other
>> editors
>> > happy with what I do.
>> >
>> > My question is: Can you have overlapping 'areas'? I was told by someone
>> in
>> > this group that you can't.
>> >
>> > For example; Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a
>> > forested area are not the same. This is the issue where I was told that
>> you
>> > can't do that.
>> > This makes no logical sense to me as this happens all the time.
>> >
>> > I would appreciate some guidance on this issue.
>> > Kind regards
>> > Andrew Parker
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [talk-au] Basic question

[Sam Wilson]

My understanding is that areas should not overlap only where they are of 
a similar type. Areas of natural=wood and boundary=national_park aren't 
similar and so it's fine for them to overlap.


On 8/10/21 6:25 am, Adam Horan via Talk-au wrote:
"Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a forested 
area are not the same."


I'd say that this is common and expected, and should be handled with 
separate areas.


I feel it's very much the old style of mapping to put 'natural=wood' 
on a park admin boundary.


Adam


On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 08:38, > wrote:


Hi
If you were told this by changeset comment, can you give the URL?
Tony

> Hi everyone
> I am a basic OSM editor. I usually just correct obvious map
errors I find
> while hiking/cycling. I have tried to be a little more ambitious
every now
> and then, but I have found it can be quite difficult to keep
other editors
> happy with what I do.
>
> My question is: Can you have overlapping 'areas'? I was told by
someone in
> this group that you can't.
>
> For example; Where something like the boundaries of a State Park
and a
> forested area are not the same. This is the issue where I was
told that you
> can't do that.
> This makes no logical sense to me as this happens all the time.
>
> I would appreciate some guidance on this issue.
> Kind regards
> Andrew Parker
>





___
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
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Basic question

[Adam Horan via Talk-au]

"Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a forested area
are not the same."

I'd say that this is common and expected, and should be handled with
separate areas.

I feel it's very much the old style of mapping to put 'natural=wood' on a
park admin boundary.

Adam


On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 08:38,  wrote:

> Hi
> If you were told this by changeset comment, can you give the URL?
> Tony
>
> > Hi everyone
> > I am a basic OSM editor. I usually just correct obvious map errors I find
> > while hiking/cycling. I have tried to be a little more ambitious every
> now
> > and then, but I have found it can be quite difficult to keep other
> editors
> > happy with what I do.
> >
> > My question is: Can you have overlapping 'areas'? I was told by someone
> in
> > this group that you can't.
> >
> > For example; Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a
> > forested area are not the same. This is the issue where I was told that
> you
> > can't do that.
> > This makes no logical sense to me as this happens all the time.
> >
> > I would appreciate some guidance on this issue.
> > Kind regards
> > Andrew Parker
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [talk-au] Basic question

[forster]

Hi
If you were told this by changeset comment, can you give the URL?
Tony


Hi everyone
I am a basic OSM editor. I usually just correct obvious map errors I find
while hiking/cycling. I have tried to be a little more ambitious every now
and then, but I have found it can be quite difficult to keep other editors
happy with what I do.

My question is: Can you have overlapping 'areas'? I was told by someone in
this group that you can't.

For example; Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a
forested area are not the same. This is the issue where I was told that you
can't do that.
This makes no logical sense to me as this happens all the time.

I would appreciate some guidance on this issue.
Kind regards
Andrew Parker







___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Basic question

[Andrew & Ingrid Parker]

Hi everyone
I am a basic OSM editor. I usually just correct obvious map errors I find
while hiking/cycling. I have tried to be a little more ambitious every now
and then, but I have found it can be quite difficult to keep other editors
happy with what I do.

My question is: Can you have overlapping 'areas'? I was told by someone in
this group that you can't.

For example; Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a
forested area are not the same. This is the issue where I was told that you
can't do that.
This makes no logical sense to me as this happens all the time.

I would appreciate some guidance on this issue.
Kind regards
Andrew Parker
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au