>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-34.03275&lon=151.13694&zoom=17&layers=M >> >> Along the edge of the bay/water there is >> >> land--> | <--trees in water--> | <-- water >> A B C >> >> In the changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6723657 >> I moved the edge of the water (which did cover both B and C) in >> towards the center of the bay, and made section B marsh. But I'm not >> sure if that was the right thing to do. Maybe it would be better if >> the natural=bay/water area included both B and C, and the boundary for >> B just laid on top of the B/C area. But since we use a proper >> mulitpolygon for doughnut geometries, just dumping B on top wouldn't >> look so nice.... >> >> What if B was tagged as marsh, C as water, and then add B and C to a >> multipolygon tagged as the bay? Or is how its mapped currently how it >> should be? Any thoughts? > > Interesting question - to be honest I'm finding it a bit hard to > understand your exact situation ("moved the edge of the water...in > towards the centre of the bay"?) But I don't know for sure what the > coastline should represent, so I'd be interested to hear opinions on > this too. > > I think a similar example is here: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2&lat=-38.298693&lon=145.199326&zoom=18 > > Steve
I usually map these as in the second example, ie coastline along the water to marsh/mangrove boundary then separate area for the marsh/mangroves. I'd also suggest that the treed area should be natural=wetland wetland=mangrove rather than natural=marsh. Cheers Ross _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
