[Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

Richard ricoz.osm at gmail.com
Wed Nov 20 17:58:58 UTC 2019

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 08:16:43AM +0900, John Willis via Tagging wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2019, at 6:53 AM, Richard <ricoz.osm at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Other than that, "dyke_area" or "area:dyke" in analogy to 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway ?
> I think dykes/levees are made of inner and outer embankments, and pairing them might be the only way to do it properly. 
> Whatever is decided for embankments (I will work on some examples today) I think a levee/dyke will have to be a relation of *some* sort (built on top of the existing man_made=dyke tag) - either a relation of this way plus: 
> - 4 “levee lines (inner&outer top+bottom)
> - 2 embankments+ 2 embankment_area polygons
> - 4 embankment lines. 
> Mapping them as a total area (lower inner to lower outer) with a single polygon with the man_made=dyke as the “top” down the middle is unacceptable to me. The “top” is often a mappable area (with large levees worthy of this detail). If it big enough to need this detail, it has a pretty large and varying top area as well (as examples have shown). 

I didn't mean to map it *only* as a total area - instead I would suggest a man_made=dyke_area
(or area:dyke, dyke_building..) overlapping all elements of the levee (embankemnts top/bottom, 
man_made_dyke and other) - thus in addition to micromapping those elements
The man_made=dyke_area would serve to group all the elements together, thus avoiding the need
for a relation in most cases.
Very similar to the way man_made=bridge works today: replace the complicated Bridge/tunnel 
relation with a simple area.


More information about the Tagging mailing list