On 06/01/2019 15:50, Edward Catmur wrote:
> It would seem a bit much to map the ford as an area unless both the
river and the highway away from the ford are mapped as areas. For the
same reason I wouldn't usually map a ford as a way unless the river is
mapped as an area.
Thanks Edward.
But what does "a bit much" mean in relation to mapping what you find on
the ground? Either a thing is there or it isn't. You can leave it out,
or make a reasonable stab at drawing what you actually see in front of
your nose.
For example I have just been updating a local ford well-known to me,
over the River Rea at Neen Savage:
https://goo.gl/maps/NetZQD1UVfE2
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.39462/-2.47891
That section of the river is mapped as an area, so I have added an area
of it as landuse=ford where it is also an area of road.
I have been mapping local waterways as areas, where both banks are shown
as such on OS OpenData. It is a tedious process because river banks are
usually so wiggly. So I do a bit at a time as my time permits.
Which raises another question -- what is the correct temporary tagging
for "this is where I've got to, I will come back and do some more soon,
I know it's not finished"?
cheers,
Martin.
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
