[Tagging] Giant river multipolygons

[Tobias Knerr]

On 29.01.2013 11:42, Pieren wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> My opinion is your opinion: if there is no good reason for gigantic areas, don't use them.
>> +1,
> 
> We already have "gigantic areas" for USA, Russia, India, China...
> So just explain me why what you accept for administrative boundaries
> is suddenly not good for rivers....

In my case the answer is straightforward: I simply do not care for
mapping administrative boundaries, as I personally prefer mapping stuff
that is visible "on the ground".

As a developer, boundaries are the first thing I throw out when
filtering the data. Luckily that's quite easy because they have their
own relation type (except for some "deprecated" cases which still use
multipolygons, but even those usually have tags like boundary=*).

Ignoring rivers is not an option for my use case, though. Likewise,
boundaries may still be a problem for those who cannot ignore them, I
wouldn't know.

Tobias