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 jus
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 ne
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
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 n
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 relat
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/relatio
6 matches
Mail list logo
