[talk-au] Murray River relation deletion?

[Little Maps]

Hi Graeme, that’s a whopper isn’t it. It contains a hotch potch of adjacent waterbodies, but the m/polygon works well to define outer and inner boundaries (islands). Given it’s not all a ‘river’, the multipolygon tags would perhaps be more accurate if the tag water=river was removed, leaving just ‘natural=water’. This aside, I don’t know that there’s any simpler way to map the area.

The big m/polygon could perhaps be broken up into separate ones, with each defining the banks of a river, stream or separate canal complexes, and each of these could have an appropriate water tag, eg water=river, water=stream, water=canal, but in practice this would replace one m/polygon with many. This has been done in the relation on Lake Capabella a bit further west, for example. This would also be necessary if someone wanted to add a name on a subset of the big m/polygon.

Given the complexity of the landuse, I imagine that there isn’t a simple alternative :(
Putting the relation issue aside, there’s certainly been some wonderful mapping up your way! Cheers Ian


On 23 May 2023, at 9:26 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Have spotted a bit of a similar issue here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6168517#map=13/-28.0105/153.4332, which has a natural river & a few "streams" running through lots of dredged out canals e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/593943553#map=13/-28.0018/153.3810.
> 
> Does this really need the relation included?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Graeme
>> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20230524/9c4c0c65/attachment.htm>