On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 01:53:55PM +0900, John Willis via Tagging wrote: > > > > On Nov 12, 2019, at 10:26 AM, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com > > <mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > If you are mapping an area, as in this case, just use a closed way or > > multipolygon. > > How would a closed way (area polygon) denote “top” and “Bottom”? > > if embankments can be easily expressed as a single simple polygon, how data > users infer “top” and "bottom” from that is beyond me. > > That is the issue: I don’t understand how a polygon would represent that, and > I think those two different pieces of mapping need to be explicitly tagged.
do not search the problem on your side of the screen:) We need new tags for the bottom of embankmets, top of cuttings, bottom of cliffs, earth_banks and maybe a few others if we want to map them. Imho all those should be tagged ways such as cliff:base, relations could be used optionaly to relate a particular cliff edge to a particular cliff base which would define the area of the slope. Here is what I see: * man_made=embankment_base or man_made=embankment:base * man_made=cutting or man_made=cutting:top - top edge of cutting in analogy to man_made=embankment (126 pieces in database but straightforward to extend) * natural=cliff_base or natural=cliff:base * natural=earth_bank_base or natural=earth_bank:base I would favor the ":" variants, it might have been nicer if we had a scheme like cliffe:edge and cliff:base and same for cutting, embankment, earth_bank from the beginning. The "old" defs like man_made=cutting can be left or man_made=cutting:base can be defined as an alias. Richard _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
