[Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name

Masi Master masi-master at gmx.de
Fri Aug 16 17:05:02 UTC 2013

Am 12.08.2013, 21:55 Uhr, schrieb Yuri D'Elia  
<wavexx at users.sourceforge.net>:

> On 08/08/2013 11:54 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>> I guess in this case I can simply re-use the geometry in a new relation
>>> with the proper valley name with type=multipolygon, place=region,
>>> region:type=valley?
>> I'd use type=multipolygon natural=valley
> I'm still not satisfied with type=multipolygon:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon#Detailed_tagging
> specifically:
> * The relation has tags:
>   Use the relation tagging. Ignore anything on the ways.
> However, this is not what should happen for a lake group where each lake
> name is independent (ie, the group is just a topological feature). And,
> as I said before, unnamed lakes should not inherit the name of the group.
> After re-reading the whole thread, I tend to agree with fly more, as a
> boundary type seem to be much more appropriate:
> type=boundary
> boundary=topologic
> natural=water
> name=lake group name
> the boundary relation has the advantage of not requiring a fake polygon
> (as opposed to place=locality).
> I have two examples of type=multipolygon which I introduced:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/3126464
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/3126459
> whole type=multipolygon relation simply broke the rendering (but
> renderers here seem to be compliant).

Hmm, I'm not sure that boundary is the right tag. Isn't it a border, and  
not an area?

The problem is, that multipolygon don't work in 2 cases:
- The areas touch each other.
- The "areas" are multipolygons. A multipolygon as a member in a other  
multipolygon is not allowed.

Either we allowed this, or we need any relation which collect these  

(What the renderer do, is not primary. If we find a good tagging, the  
renderer should follow the tagging, not backwards.)

More information about the Tagging mailing list