<div dir="ltr">Jim,<div><br></div><div>You are welcome, but I don't think we are out of the woods yet. Overnight the NE end of Isle Royal became "flooded" at zoom level 13,</div><div><br></div><div>As someone else pointed out, there are two relations for Lake Superior. One covers the entire lake (at least in spatial extent), and the other only covers the Canadian side. I only removed "natural=water" from the first relation. The Canadian relation still has it. Not every member of the Canadian relation has "natural=coastline" (mainly islands). Some of the ways go the wrong way (i.e. land on the right). </div><div><br></div><div>Proposed Course of action. </div><div>1) Download Canadian Lake Superior relation and all its members to JOSM. </div><div>2) Make sure every individual member way is tagged "natural=coastline" (except the way(s) that form the boundary between Canada and the US. </div><div>3) Make sure every individual way has land on the left. (except the US Canadian border that runs through the lake). </div><div>4) Remove "natural=water" from the Canadian relation </div><div>5) Upload. </div><div><br></div><div>=== Later ===</div><div>6) Make sure all members of the Canadian relation appear in the overall relation (or that their purpose is filled my some other member(s) of the overall relation. </div><div>7) Delete the Canadian relation. </div><div><br></div><div>All,</div><div><br></div><div>Please provide comments on the above course of action. Advice and guidance is welcome. </div><div><br></div><div>Mike</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Mike</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Jim McAndrew <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jim@loc8.us" target="_blank">jim@loc8.us</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Mike,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for doing this! It sounds like a much bigger ordeal than I had originally thought.</div><div><br></div><div>--</div><div>Jim</div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Mike Thompson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:miketho16@gmail.com" target="_blank">miketho16@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">All,<div><br></div><div>Since no objection to removing "natural=water" from the Lake Superior relation has been expressed, I have removed it. I also amended the note on the relation asking that it not be added back in. </div><span><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Mike</div></font></span></div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 9:08 PM, David Fawcett <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:david.fawcett@gmail.com" target="_blank">david.fawcett@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div>Inland sea...<br><br><div><br></div></div><div><div><div><br>On Apr 25, 2015, at 8:19 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <<a href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com" target="_blank">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><br><br><br></div><div><br>Am 24.04.2015 um 17:23 schrieb AJ Ashton <<a href="mailto:aj.ashton@gmail.com" target="_blank">aj.ashton@gmail.com</a>>:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite">Yes, if Lake Superior is mapped as natural=coastline (which I think is the easier-to-maintain approach for such a large & complex water body) then we should remove natural=water from the multipolygon relation (r4039486). Does anyone have any objection to this? It's causing some noticeable rendering issues both in the standard style and for data consumers.<div></div></blockquote><br><div><br></div><div>yes, if the coastline tag remains it seems logical to remove the natural=water tag. Semantically the coastline tag on a freshwater lake is clearly wrong, but it seems to be an accepted compromise in this case: <a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline#What_about_lakes.3F" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline#What_about_lakes.3F</a></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>cheers </div><div>Martin </div></div></blockquote></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><span><br><span>Talk-us mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a></span><br></span></div></blockquote></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-us mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-us mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>