[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - boundary=forest(_compartment) relations

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Feb 10, 2021, 13:55 by pla16021 at gmail.com:

> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 11:29, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> tagging at openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> Unfortunately, this often leads to a somewhat buggy rendering, with trees symbols rendered in the water.
>>>
>  
>
>>>
>>>
>> This is deliberate to show that tagging is buggy.
>>
>
> Sometimes (very rarely) this is not bad tagging but deliberate.  Maybe
> there's a better way of doing it, but trees in water is something I recently
> had to map. 
>
And in such cases, trees are deliberate displayed.

This way in case where:

(1)
trees are mapped as existing on the same area as water:
trees are rendered on the same area as water

(2)
trees are mapped as not existing on the same area as water:
trees are not rendered on the same area as water:

This way both lake/grassland without trees, surrounded by
trees will be encouraged to be mapped properly,
and area where trees are standing in water is encouraged
to be mapped properly (though it is probably rather wetland
in most cases?)

(the same above attempts to be applicable also to tree-covered
landuse=residential, amenity=school, amenity=hospital etc)


>  A former defensive moat (suspected to have originally
> been an oxbow lake which was co-opted into a fortification) which now
> has trees growing in much of it.  On Ordnance Survey maps it is shown
> as water; from aerial imagery and archaeological reports the water has
> trees in much of it.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/890161871#map=18/52.04090/-4.42008
> Maybe there's a better way of doing it but that was the best I could come
> up with.
>
Seems OK to me.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210211/793682b2/attachment.htm>