On 22/5/23 16:09, Little Maps wrote:
Hi folks, just checking to make sure I'm not missing something here...
There's a large relation called 'Murray River' which covers all of
Lake Hume, plus an upstream section of the Murray. This is a
natural=water 'riverbank' relation, not a waterway relation.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8327459#map=11/-36.1129/147.3280
There's also another, nearly identical, relation called 'Lake Hume'
that covers Lake Hume only. This only covers the lake, not the river
upstream, and looks fine.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1531635#map=11/-36.0960/147.2417
Are there any objections if I severely truncate the Murray River
relation so it excludes Lake Hume, and includes only the river
upstream of Lake Hume, where it will join the eastern edge of the Lake
Hume relation?
The southern arm of Lake Hume is fed by the Mitta Mitta not the
Murray, so calling the entire lake the Murray River is problematic.
Again, this relation covers the boundary of the lake, not the central
waterway.
That sound good to me. I have posed a simpler question on the wiki ..
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:water%3Driver#Conflicts_between_river_bank_mapping_and_a_lake%2Freservoir
See what the 'experts' come up with.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
