I suspect this might be a mapping competence problem or possibly a problem with the editing tool rather than intent to add incorrect information. It appears to me that the intent might have been to map the area as a wood but it has been mapped also as swamp (from the nearby relation).
I once created similar problem quite inadvertently. Depending on the editor being used (I prefer Potlatch) relations type=multipolygon can go awry. When I converted relations to type =boundary + boundary=natural, everything was much better behaved and I could see what I was mapping. This might not be the problem in this instance but, in the first instance, it appears to me that it might be a problem in mapping relations. On Sun, 23 Feb 2020, at 10:41 PM, Warin wrote: > Hi, > > > There has been some remote mapping of the Diamond Beach area based on > imagery and descriptive texts. Note the descriptive texts are copyright. > > > My contention is that without going there or a correctly licensed source > these things cannot be mapped with any certainty, particularly without > local knowledge. > > Imagery alone is not enough. > > > I refer to; > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80818669 > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80810033 > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80747704 > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80736708 > > > > I am afraid this mapper falls into the same category as a past remove > mapper who mapped rocks as cliffs in the Snowys. > > > My inclination is to remove these objects on the basis that they > questionable on the stated sources and the lack of local knowledge of > the mapper. > > > Thoughts? > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au