<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">If you are talking about a simple wetland you may find in a small pond or lake, It’s easy, but natural formations are often very messy and complicated - especially when a wetland covers an area larger than most villages. <div><br></div><div><div>There is often overlap where I am where a wetland lives permanently in the bottom of a basin, and the surrounding area is a park or sports field. When there is a storm the basin fills up and wetland, pitch, and parking lot end up under 3m of water for a day or so. </div><div><br></div><div>The wetland is not exclusively part of that structure. The basin or intermittent reservoir consumes everything inside of it. </div><div><br></div><div>I have 3 basins In my area that are 5KM wide that 363 days a year are wetland, sports complexes, airstrips, parks, etc. then a typhoon hits and fills it with 3m of water for a day or so. </div><div><br></div><div>The structure of the surrounding area still influences the smaller area, like a river way going through a giant wetland. </div><div><br></div><div>In a lake, some corner of the lake is often a wetland - yet that wetland is 100% the part of the lake. It should be layered IMO. That could happen for a wetland too, right? </div><div><br></div><div>Maybe I am looking at it in a wrong way. </div><div><br></div><div>A multipolygon might be a good solution for some of these pond in wetland situations (like an island in a lake), but won’t there also be some cases with water features where the they truly are 2 things in the same space? <br><br>Can it always be validated as “wrong?” <br><br><div dir="ltr">Javbw</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On May 1, 2020, at 3:36 AM, Andy Townsend <ajt1047@gmail.com> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 30/04/2020 19:09, Paul Allen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAPy1dO+s7cAek0sUp36cEYHy=MPuqEn6gAasRYcZB3tW3hLaEQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 18:45, Andy Townsend via
Tagging <<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org" moz-do-not-send="true">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>There are always going to be edge cases that aren't
easy to categorise. There's an area just up the road from
where I am currently that started out as <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/13866095" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/13866095</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That's coming up as deleted 6 years ago by Yorvik
Prestigitator. Typo?</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No - follow the history forward and you'll get to
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/796675406">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/796675406</a> . I was doing some
tidying up of the fence, woodland and ditches at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/84161134#map=19/54.02644/-0.99852">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/84161134#map=19/54.02644/-0.99852</a>
a few days ago and the object "moved" to a new ID. For
convenience it would have made sense to link to that as well,
obviously :)</p>
<p>Best Regards,</p>
<p>Andy</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Tagging mailing list</span><br><span>Tagging@openstreetmap.org</span><br><span>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</span><br></div></blockquote></div></div></body></html>