[Talk-us] Great Lakes Boundaries

Mike Thompson miketho16 at gmail.com
Sun Apr 26 14:47:59 UTC 2015


All,

Since no objection to removing "natural=water" from the Lake Superior
relation has been expressed, I have removed it. I also amended the note on
the relation asking that it not be added back in.

Mike

On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 9:08 PM, David Fawcett <david.fawcett at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Inland sea...
>
>
>
> On Apr 25, 2015, at 8:19 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 24.04.2015 um 17:23 schrieb AJ Ashton <aj.ashton at gmail.com>:
>
> Yes, if Lake Superior is mapped as natural=coastline (which I think is the
> easier-to-maintain approach for such a large & complex water body) then we
> should remove natural=water from the multipolygon relation (r4039486). Does
> anyone have any objection to this? It's causing some noticeable rendering
> issues both in the standard style and for data consumers.
>
>
>
> yes, if the coastline tag remains it seems logical to remove the
> natural=water tag. Semantically the coastline tag on a freshwater lake is
> clearly wrong, but it seems to be an accepted compromise in this case:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline#What_about_lakes.3F
>
>
> cheers
> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150426/b2bd8db8/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list