[talk-au] mapping marsh at the edge of a bay

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Wed Dec 22 00:35:43 GMT 2010


On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Andrew Harvey
<andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com> wrote:
> For example,
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-34.03275&lon=151.13694&zoom=17&layers=M
>
> Along the edge of the bay/water there is
>
> land--> | <--trees in water--> | <-- water
>  A                  B                C
>
> In the changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6723657
> I moved the edge of the water (which did cover both B and C) in
> towards the center of the bay, and made section B marsh. But I'm not
> sure if that was the right thing to do. Maybe it would be better if
> the natural=bay/water area included both B and C, and the boundary for
> B just laid on top of the B/C area. But since we use a proper
> mulitpolygon for doughnut geometries, just dumping B on top wouldn't
> look so nice....
>
> What if B was tagged as marsh, C as water, and then add B and C to a
> multipolygon tagged as the bay? Or is how its mapped currently how it
> should be? Any thoughts?

Interesting question - to be honest I'm finding it a bit hard to
understand your exact situation ("moved the edge of the water...in
towards the centre of the bay"?) But I don't know for sure what the
coastline should represent, so I'd be interested to hear opinions on
this too.

I think a similar example is here:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2&lat=-38.298693&lon=145.199326&zoom=18

Steve



More information about the Talk-au mailing list