Hi Graeme, that’s a whopper isn’t it. It contains a hotch potch of adjacent waterbodies, but the m/polygon works well to define outer and inner boundaries (islands). Given it’s not all a ‘river’, the multipolygon tags would perhaps be more accurate if the tag water=river was removed, leaving just ‘natural=water’. This aside, I don’t know that there’s any simpler way to map the area.
The big m/polygon could perhaps be broken up into separate ones, with each defining the banks of a river, stream or separate canal complexes, and each of these could have an appropriate water tag, eg water=river, water=stream, water=canal, but in practice this would replace one m/polygon with many. This has been done in the relation on Lake Capabella a bit further west, for example. This would also be necessary if someone wanted to add a name on a subset of the big m/polygon. Given the complexity of the landuse, I imagine that there isn’t a simple alternative :( Putting the relation issue aside, there’s certainly been some wonderful mapping up your way! Cheers Ian On 23 May 2023, at 9:26 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Have spotted a bit of a similar issue here: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6168517#map=13/-28.0105/153.4332, > which has a natural river & a few "streams" running through lots of dredged > out canals e.g. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/593943553#map=13/-28.0018/153.3810. > > Does this really need the relation included? > > Thanks > > Graeme >>
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
