[talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)

[Markus_g]

Port Philip Bay also doesn't seem to have a problem.

Relation 1221199



-----Original Message-----
From: talk-au-bounces at openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-au-bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Harvey
Sent: Thursday, 21 October 2010 8:48 AM
To: OSM Australian Talk List
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)

Botany Bay had one single way for the outer way, wheras Port Hacking
as serveral non-closed ways whose ends meet up for the outers. That
could explain why they render different, but I don't think that is the
reason.

Because those bays I split off (eg Gunnamatta Bay) are just normal
single closed way bays, and although the renderer seems to have moved
the names to the centre of the newly created way from where the node
was previously, they are not rendering blue. So I have no idea whats
going on.. Could it be a coastline problem?

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Markus_g <markus_g at bigpond.com> wrote:
> I have noticed that Port Hacking still doesn't appear in blue on the
Mapnik
> Layer. Maybe natural=bay isn't supported as multipolygons. On the wikki it
> only shows usage to be for nodes and ways. It doesn't make sense though
that
> it worked ok on Botany Bay.
>
> I had a look at world usage of natural=bay
>
>  tag        value      uses       node way  relation
> natural bay     15,286  15,029  240     17
>
> Maybe it should be natural=water after all.
>
> Any ideas.
>
> Markus.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: talk-au-bounces at openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:talk-au-bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Harvey
> Sent: Wednesday, 20 October 2010 9:21 AM
> To: OSM Australian Talk List
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Markus_g <markus_g at bigpond.com> wrote:
>> Well at the moment it isn't rendering correctly as there is no coastline
>> across the entrance.
> I see you've fix that now.
>
>> Well to be tagged as natural=water it should be a body of standing water,
>> such as a lake or pond.
>>
>> To be tagged as natural=bay it should be an area of water mostly
> surrounded
>> or otherwise demarcated by land. Bays generally have calmer waters than
> the
>> surrounding sea, due to the surrounding land blocking some waves and
often
>> reducing winds. It can also be an inlet in a lake or pond.
>>
>> I think it should be a bay or coastline.
>>
>> If I am unsure I use the following source to decide, but others may have
>> different reasons to tag certain ways.
>>
>>
>> http://www.ga.gov.au/place-name/
>>
>>
>> It lists the feature code for Port Hacking as a bay.
>>
>> http://www.ga.gov.au/bin/gazd01?rec=78217#
>>
>
> Okay, I'm happy with bay now.
>
> I've split off some of the other bays
> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6103886), I wasn't sure
> if these should also form part of the mulitpolygon as well as outer.
>
> Also it seems the main boundary for Port Hacking is a way traced from
> Yahoo, it is close to the ABS administrative boarder, I was wondering
> if we should just place the Port Hacking boarder on the ABS boundary.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au