[talk-au] Basic question

[Andrew & Ingrid Parker]

Thank you everyone. It is clear now that it is OK to have an area inside or
overlapping another area. That is logical and contrary to what I had been
told by another mapper. It may be the case that I misunderstood what they
were saying.
Cheers
Andrew Parker

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:53, cleary <osm at 97k.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Good mapping practice is to keep administrative boundaries such as state
>> parks, conservation areas, suburbs etc separate from natural features such
>> as water, waterways, woods etc.  While they sometimes approximate, they
>> rarely coincide exactly.
>>
>> Tagging a state park as natural=wood is usually inappropriate because
>> there will, nearly always, be parts of the park that are unwooded.  Best to
>> map the park with its official boundary and then map the natural features
>> separately using other unofficial sources such as survey and satellite
>> imagery.
>>
>
> Agreed, though as a rough first pass it has been common to tag
> natural=wood on the administrative boundary if it's 90% correct, but
> eventually as the mapping becomes more detailed separate natural=wood is
> the way to go.
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20211008/469f910e/attachment.htm>