<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Feb 10, 2021, 13:55 by pla16021@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 11:29, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class=""><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=""><div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=""><div>Unfortunately, this often leads to a somewhat buggy rendering, with trees symbols rendered in the water.<br></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div> <br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=""><div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=""><div><br></div></blockquote><div><div>This is deliberate to show that tagging is buggy.<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Sometimes (very rarely) this is not bad tagging but deliberate. Maybe<br></div><div>there's a better way of doing it, but trees in water is something I recently<br></div><div>had to map. <br></div></div></div></blockquote><div>And in such cases, trees are deliberate displayed.<br></div><div><br></div><div>This way in case where:<br></div><div><br></div><div>(1)<br></div><div>trees are mapped as existing on the same area as water:<br></div><div>trees are rendered on the same area as water<br></div><div><br></div><div>(2)<br></div><div>trees are mapped as not existing on the same area as water:<br></div><div><div>trees are not rendered on the same area as water:<br></div><div><div><br></div></div></div><div><div><div>This way both lake/grassland without trees, surrounded by<br></div><div>trees will be encouraged to be mapped properly,<br></div><div>and area where trees are standing in water is encouraged<br></div><div>to be mapped properly (though it is probably rather wetland<br></div><div>in most cases?)<br></div><div><br></div><div>(the same above attempts to be applicable also to tree-covered<br></div><div>landuse=residential, amenity=school, amenity=hospital etc)<br></div></div></div><div><div><br></div></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div class=""><div> A former defensive moat (suspected to have originally<br></div><div>been an oxbow lake which was co-opted into a fortification) which now<br></div><div>has trees growing in much of it. On Ordnance Survey maps it is shown<br></div><div>as water; from aerial imagery and archaeological reports the water has<br></div><div>trees in much of it.<br></div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/890161871#map=18/52.04090/-4.42008" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/890161871#map=18/52.04090/-4.42008</a><br></div><div>Maybe there's a better way of doing it but that was the best I could come<br></div><div>up with.<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div>Seems OK to me.<br></div><div><br></div> </body>
</html>