[talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
reviews at pacific-rim.net
Thu Oct 21 11:05:41 BST 2010
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Harvey" <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
To: "OSM Australian Talk List" <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:51 PM
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.
I'm not sure that was correct.
Looking at all ways forming the coastline there should be an uninterrupted
sequence of ways.
Currently there appears to be:
1) one "section" of ways tagged as natural = coastline which are a
continuous collection of ways running up the coast and across the entrance
to the bay.
2) another "section" of ways within the bay , tagged as natural = coastline
Either the ways in the bay need to have natural = coastline removed from
them, OR the bit across the mouth of the bay needs to have natural =
coastline removed from it.
I cant say whether this is the reason why the bay is not rendering blue, but
it certainly is not going to help matters. Also note that if this is the
reason, then due to the fact that mapnik coastline layer is not updated as
frequently as other data, then no immediate change may be noticeable.
>> 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
>> or otherwise demarcated by land. Bays generally have calmer waters than
>> surrounding sea, due to the surrounding land blocking some waves and
>> 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.
>> It lists the feature code for Port Hacking as a bay.
> 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
More information about the Talk-au