A common established method to name natural features with separated
parts is as a multipolygon with several outers. There is one object that
ties them all together.
In this case a multipolygon is not possible, since the member types
differ and "outers" share segments. I think to actually have them all
tied together in a unit is still a good idea, it is one entity, not
multiple entities named the same. If this ever gets supported by a
renderer the logical way would be to have the name only on the relation
and no name on the separate parts.
/Anders
On 2020-12-13 16:15, Christoph Hormann wrote:
Anders Torger <and...@torger.se> hat am 13.12.2020 15:28 geschrieben:
So what I've settled for (for now) is as follows:
- same name on each part (the only way to get the data useful *today*)
- a new relation with all parts as members (role unset), type=natural,
natural=wetland, name=<the name>
I am trying to understand what the issue is with the recommendation
for mapping you have received from multiple sides here.
So what exactly is the verifiable knowledge that is supposed to be
represented by your new relation type that is not already recorded in
the mapping of physical features?
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
