[Talk-us] Great Lakes Boundaries

Mike Thompson miketho16 at gmail.com
Mon Apr 27 15:12:12 UTC 2015


Jim,

You are welcome, but I don't think we are out of the woods yet. Overnight
the NE end of Isle Royal became "flooded" at zoom level 13,

As someone else pointed out, there are two relations for Lake Superior.
One covers the entire lake (at least in spatial extent), and the other only
covers the Canadian side. I only removed "natural=water" from the first
relation. The Canadian relation still has it. Not every member of the
Canadian relation has "natural=coastline" (mainly islands).  Some of the
ways go the wrong way (i.e. land on the right).

Proposed Course of action.
1) Download Canadian Lake Superior relation and all its members to JOSM.
2) Make sure every individual member way is tagged "natural=coastline"
(except the way(s) that form the boundary between Canada and the US.
3) Make sure every individual way has land on the left. (except the US
Canadian border that runs through the lake).
4) Remove "natural=water" from the Canadian relation
5) Upload.

=== Later ===
6) Make sure all members of the Canadian relation appear in the overall
relation (or that their purpose is filled my some other member(s) of the
overall relation.
7) Delete the Canadian relation.

All,

Please provide comments on the above course of action.  Advice and guidance
is welcome.

Mike



Mike

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Jim McAndrew <jim at loc8.us> wrote:

> Mike,
>
> Thanks for doing this! It sounds like a much bigger ordeal than I had
> originally thought.
>
> --
> Jim
>
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150427/419b9658/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list