On 15/7/24 12:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 at 14:58, Alex Sims wrote:
At the moment the relation is a collection of nodes, but really
they are areas, possibly not well defined, but certainly large
enough to put a tent up in. I’d be changing the nodes to areas
On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 at 14:58, Alex Sims wrote:
> At the moment the relation is a collection of nodes, but really they are
> areas, possibly not well defined, but certainly large enough to put a tent
> up in. I’d be changing the nodes to areas which would make sense and then a
> multipolygon to j
nging the nodes to areas which would make sense
and then a multipolygon to join them all together. I note also that
there is poor downstream support for a “site” relation.
Alex
*From: *Graeme Fitzpatrick
*Date: *Sunday, 14 July 2024 at 12:55 pm
*To: *OSM-Au
*Subject: *[talk-au] Checking on
pm
To: OSM-Au
Subject: [talk-au] Checking on site relation
Could one of our relation experts please have a look at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17833891#map=13/-35.1636/148.6804 to see
if I've done it properly?
It relates to https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4266915 where 4 separ
Could one of our relation experts please have a look at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17833891#map=13/-35.1636/148.6804 to
see if I've done it properly?
It relates to https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4266915 where 4 separately
named campgrounds are all linked together under 1 overall na
5 matches
Mail list logo
