Re: [talk-au] Murray River relation deletion?
Hi Graeme, that’s a whopper isn’t it. It contains a hotch potch of adjacent waterbodies, but the m/polygon works well to define outer and inner boundaries (islands). Given it’s not all a ‘river’, the multipolygon tags would perhaps be more accurate if the tag water=river was removed, leaving just ‘natural=water’. This aside, I don’t know that there’s any simpler way to map the area. The big m/polygon could perhaps be broken up into separate ones, with each defining the banks of a river, stream or separate canal complexes, and each of these could have an appropriate water tag, eg water=river, water=stream, water=canal, but in practice this would replace one m/polygon with many. This has been done in the relation on Lake Capabella a bit further west, for example. This would also be necessary if someone wanted to add a name on a subset of the big m/polygon. Given the complexity of the landuse, I imagine that there isn’t a simple alternative :( Putting the relation issue aside, there’s certainly been some wonderful mapping up your way! Cheers Ian On 23 May 2023, at 9:26 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > Have spotted a bit of a similar issue here: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6168517#map=13/-28.0105/153.4332, > which has a natural river & a few "streams" running through lots of dredged > out canals e.g. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/593943553#map=13/-28.0018/153.3810. > > Does this really need the relation included? > > Thanks > > Graeme >> ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Murray River relation deletion?
Have spotted a bit of a similar issue here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6168517#map=13/-28.0105/153.4332, which has a natural river & a few "streams" running through lots of dredged out canals e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/593943553#map=13/-28.0018/153.3810. Does this really need the relation included? Thanks Graeme On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 07:59, Little Maps wrote: > Thanks Warin and Cleary, I’ll remove the lake from the relation and cut > the relation back to the river banks. I agree, there’s no need to add name > or other tags to the riverbank (natural=water) tags as these details are > already on the waterway and the waterway relation. Warin, I’ve never seen a > lake that has a river name on its boundaries like this, the river details > are usually on a central waterway, if one has been mapped. Thanks again, Ian > > > ___ > 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] Murray River relation deletion?
Thanks Warin and Cleary, I’ll remove the lake from the relation and cut the relation back to the river banks. I agree, there’s no need to add name or other tags to the riverbank (natural=water) tags as these details are already on the waterway and the waterway relation. Warin, I’ve never seen a lake that has a river name on its boundaries like this, the river details are usually on a central waterway, if one has been mapped. Thanks again, Ian ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Murray River relation deletion?
I agree with your proposed action to separate the lake from the remainder of the river. Related to this is the question of whether riverbanks should be named. I would name a waterway and its relation but not a riverbank multipolygon. I would have thought that a search for "Murray River" would not be assisted by lots of water area multipolygons all named Murray River. I'm not sure what is best practice. On Mon, 22 May 2023, at 4:09 PM, Little Maps wrote: > Hi folks, just checking to make sure I'm not missing something here... > > There's a large relation called 'Murray River' which covers all of Lake > Hume, plus an upstream section of the Murray. This is a natural=water > 'riverbank' relation, not a waterway relation. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8327459#map=11/-36.1129/147.3280 > > There's also another, nearly identical, relation called 'Lake Hume' > that covers Lake Hume only. This only covers the lake, not the river > upstream, and looks fine. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1531635#map=11/-36.0960/147.2417 > > Are there any objections if I severely truncate the Murray River > relation so it excludes Lake Hume, and includes only the river upstream > of Lake Hume, where it will join the eastern edge of the Lake Hume > relation? > > The southern arm of Lake Hume is fed by the Mitta Mitta not the Murray, > so calling the entire lake the Murray River is problematic. Again, this > relation covers the boundary of the lake, not the central waterway. > > Anything I'm missing here? Thanks again, Ian > ___ > 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] Murray River relation deletion?
On 22/5/23 16:09, Little Maps wrote: Hi folks, just checking to make sure I'm not missing something here... There's a large relation called 'Murray River' which covers all of Lake Hume, plus an upstream section of the Murray. This is a natural=water 'riverbank' relation, not a waterway relation. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8327459#map=11/-36.1129/147.3280 There's also another, nearly identical, relation called 'Lake Hume' that covers Lake Hume only. This only covers the lake, not the river upstream, and looks fine. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1531635#map=11/-36.0960/147.2417 Are there any objections if I severely truncate the Murray River relation so it excludes Lake Hume, and includes only the river upstream of Lake Hume, where it will join the eastern edge of the Lake Hume relation? The southern arm of Lake Hume is fed by the Mitta Mitta not the Murray, so calling the entire lake the Murray River is problematic. Again, this relation covers the boundary of the lake, not the central waterway. That sound good to me. I have posed a simpler question on the wiki .. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:water%3Driver#Conflicts_between_river_bank_mapping_and_a_lake%2Freservoir See what the 'experts' come up with. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Murray River relation deletion?
Hi folks, just checking to make sure I'm not missing something here... There's a large relation called 'Murray River' which covers all of Lake Hume, plus an upstream section of the Murray. This is a natural=water 'riverbank' relation, not a waterway relation. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8327459#map=11/-36.1129/147.3280 There's also another, nearly identical, relation called 'Lake Hume' that covers Lake Hume only. This only covers the lake, not the river upstream, and looks fine. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1531635#map=11/-36.0960/147.2417 Are there any objections if I severely truncate the Murray River relation so it excludes Lake Hume, and includes only the river upstream of Lake Hume, where it will join the eastern edge of the Lake Hume relation? The southern arm of Lake Hume is fed by the Mitta Mitta not the Murray, so calling the entire lake the Murray River is problematic. Again, this relation covers the boundary of the lake, not the central waterway. Anything I'm missing here? Thanks again, Ian ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
