On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 08:16:43AM +0900, John Willis via Tagging wrote: > On Nov 19, 2019, at 6:53 AM, Richard <ricoz....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Other than that, "dyke_area" or "area:dyke" in analogy to > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway ? > > I think dykes/levees are made of inner and outer embankments, and pairing > them might be the only way to do it properly. > > Whatever is decided for embankments (I will work on some examples today) I > think a levee/dyke will have to be a relation of *some* sort (built on top of > the existing man_made=dyke tag) - either a relation of this way plus: > - 4 “levee lines (inner&outer top+bottom) > - 2 embankments+ 2 embankment_area polygons > - 4 embankment lines. > > Mapping them as a total area (lower inner to lower outer) with a single > polygon with the man_made=dyke as the “top” down the middle is unacceptable > to me. The “top” is often a mappable area (with large levees worthy of this > detail). If it big enough to need this detail, it has a pretty large and > varying top area as well (as examples have shown).
I didn't mean to map it *only* as a total area - instead I would suggest a man_made=dyke_area (or area:dyke, dyke_building..) overlapping all elements of the levee (embankemnts top/bottom, man_made_dyke and other) - thus in addition to micromapping those elements The man_made=dyke_area would serve to group all the elements together, thus avoiding the need for a relation in most cases. Very similar to the way man_made=bridge works today: replace the complicated Bridge/tunnel relation with a simple area. Richard _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
