<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/03/2013 13:13, Roger Calvert
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:514EFBFA.4020909@rogercalvert.me.uk"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
The problem seemed to be that the boundary of Rydal Water had been
split into 3 parts which, although they were assigned to the Rydal
Water relation, had no tags of their own. Potlatch was not
identifying the area as water.<br>
<br>
I have joined them up, and given them the natural=water tag.
Potlatch now recognises Rydal Water as a lake. I chose this
approach after reviewing how Grasmere was tagged. I assume
something similar happened to Windermere, but have not time to
investigate now.<br>
<br>
If anyone is not happy with what I have done, let me know - there
are always subtleties of these things to be learnt.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Please read the link on multipolygons:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon</a><br>
<br>
By making your edits you now incorrectly made Rydal Water a part of
the River Rothay multi-polygon. <br>
<br>
The natural=water tag is included in the multi-polygon. Adding it to
the way is an unnecessary & confusing duplication. To avoid this
confusion I often put a note tag explaining where the data is
stored.<br>
<br>
Remember that just because you think the potlach editor is
displaying data incorrectly it doesn't actually mean the the data is
wrong. In this example the lake doesn't have to be shaded blue to be
correct. It's how the renderers handle it that matters.<br>
<br>
ASAIK, there's nothing specifically wrong to to have ways split like
this. In fact it was encouraged for long, many noded ways which were
causing certain problems (I forget the details).<br>
<br>
Dave F.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>