How to tag named group of named water areas?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
80 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

How to tag named group of named water areas?

Mateusz Konieczny-3
Lest say that we have ngroup of ponds called "Groble", with

- a water area called "Small Pond"
- a water area called "Big Pond"

What is the best way to tag this?

First part for obvious:

- way with natural=water and name="Small Pond"
- way with natural=water and name="Big Pond"
- relation grouping this ways with name="Groble" and proper type

But how relation should be tagged?

Tagging it natural=water seems wrong to me - as result water areas would be tagged twice.

But maybe it would be OK?

If water is supposed to not be tagged twice - maybe use something like
place=water_areas? But it seems not better to me.

Is there a good way to tag something like that?



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag named group of named water areas?

Tod Fitch
Perhaps a site relation. :)


On October 7, 2018 9:07:48 AM PDT, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
Lest say that we have ngroup of ponds called "Groble", with

- a water area called "Small Pond"
- a water area called "Big Pond"

What is the best way to tag this?

First part for obvious:

- way with natural=water and name="Small Pond"
- way with natural=water and name="Big Pond"
- relation grouping this ways with name="Groble" and proper type

But how relation should be tagged?

Tagging it natural=water seems wrong to me - as result water areas would be tagged twice.

But maybe it would be OK?

If water is supposed to not be tagged twice - maybe use something like
place=water_areas? But it seems not better to me.

Is there a good way to tag something like that?



--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag named group of named water areas?

Yves-2
This case sounds not so abusive of multipolygons.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag named group of named water areas?

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Tod Fitch
I hoped to avoid that sidetrack.

Question is the same, no matter whatever "and proper type" means
type=site or type=multipolygon.

7. Oct 2018 18:31 by [hidden email]:

Perhaps a site relation. :)


On October 7, 2018 9:07:48 AM PDT, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
Lest say that we have ngroup of ponds called "Groble", with

- a water area called "Small Pond"
- a water area called "Big Pond"

What is the best way to tag this?

First part for obvious:

- way with natural=water and name="Small Pond"
- way with natural=water and name="Big Pond"
- relation grouping this ways with name="Groble" and proper type

But how relation should be tagged?

Tagging it natural=water seems wrong to me - as result water areas would be tagged twice.

But maybe it would be OK?

If water is supposed to not be tagged twice - maybe use something like
place=water_areas? But it seems not better to me.

Is there a good way to tag something like that?



--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag named group of named water areas?

marc marc
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3
place=locality and/or type=site

I'm not sure it's necessary to create a value to repeat the type of
object already present in osm. otherwise it would require a value for
each type of object and a value for each type of possible combination
between theose types.

Le 07. 10. 18 à 18:07, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :

> Lest say that we have ngroup of ponds called "Groble", with
>
> - a water area called "Small Pond"
> - a water area called "Big Pond"
>
> What is the best way to tag this?
>
> First part for obvious:
>
> - way with natural=water and name="Small Pond"
> - way with natural=water and name="Big Pond"
> - relation grouping this ways with name="Groble" and proper type
>
> But how relation should be tagged?
>
> Tagging it natural=water seems wrong to me - as result water areas would
> be tagged twice.
>
> But maybe it would be OK?
>
> If water is supposed to not be tagged twice - maybe use something like
> place=water_areas? But it seems not better to me.
>
> Is there a good way to tag something like that?
>
> real example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8593489
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag named group of named water areas?

Joseph Eisenberg
Is this name “Groble” the name of the land that surrounds the ponds, or is it the name of the water features only? 

I wouldn’t use locality for water areas. 

Multipolygon would not be ideal, because that would double-count the amount of water. If someone tries to analyze the number of lakes or total area of lakes in the region it could lead to wrong results.

Maybe this is an example where site could work?

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 4:47 AM marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
place=locality and/or type=site

I'm not sure it's necessary to create a value to repeat the type of
object already present in osm. otherwise it would require a value for
each type of object and a value for each type of possible combination
between theose types.

Le 07. 10. 18 à 18:07, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> Lest say that we have ngroup of ponds called "Groble", with
>
> - a water area called "Small Pond"
> - a water area called "Big Pond"
>
> What is the best way to tag this?
>
> First part for obvious:
>
> - way with natural=water and name="Small Pond"
> - way with natural=water and name="Big Pond"
> - relation grouping this ways with name="Groble" and proper type
>
> But how relation should be tagged?
>
> Tagging it natural=water seems wrong to me - as result water areas would
> be tagged twice.
>
> But maybe it would be OK?
>
> If water is supposed to not be tagged twice - maybe use something like
> place=water_areas? But it seems not better to me.
>
> Is there a good way to tag something like that?
>
> real example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8593489
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag named group of named water areas?

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3


sent from a phone

> On 7. Oct 2018, at 19:28, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I hoped to avoid that sidetrack.
>
> Question is the same, no matter whatever "and proper type" means
> type=site or type=multipolygon.


yes, we do not have a generic way of approaching this problem (and given how we do it elsewhere, maybe we should not have at all). Nested name hierarchies are quite common in the real world, e.g. for geographic regions, and while we have solved some special cases like settlements and their parts, we did not so far develop a solution for the generic case.

Locality might fit, but isn’t specific to a group of water bodies, so the solution consistent with the rest of the tagging system would likely be to use something like natural=* and name, where * is a name for this kind of feature, e.g. “waterbodies”.

On a sidenote, I would not see a case for a site relation if you map the ponds as areas.

Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag named group of named water areas?

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by marc marc


sent from a phone

> On 7. Oct 2018, at 21:46, marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure it's necessary to create a value to repeat the type of
> object already present in osm. otherwise it would require a value for
> each type of object and a value for each type of possible combination
> between theose types.


what is “necessary” has to do with the use case someone has in mind, if you want to unambiguously map that there is a group of lakes with a common name for the group, it is indeed necessary to describe the thing with more tags than just a name.

Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag named group of named water areas?

AlaskaDave
The multiple water body situation arises frequently in my Alaska mapping. I have struggled over the years to tag them in such a manner that the names will render but without resorting to trickery to make that happen. A couple of years ago I happened on a group of three lakes, two of which contained islands and were already multipolygons created during an old import. The other was merely a small lake. The USGS Topo maps I use as my guide for naming things in these remote regions gave the name Three Lakes to the group. I created a multipolygon relation tagged with natural=water to contain them but for reasons I do not recall now, put the name Three Lakes on each of them. Perhaps I was struggling to get those names to display inside JOSM, or maybe it was just because I had so little experience with multipolygons of this type. Whatever. I made a note to myself to check after a time to see if Three Lakes was findable via a Nominatum search. I did that last week and found that they were not.

So I retagged them this time assigning the name "Three Lakes" to the relation containing the lakes and removing it from the individual lakes. I checked back again today, after a few days had elapsed, and was able to seach for and find Three Lakes. But also today, when I was checking the area in order to use it as an example for my reponse to this thread, I noticed that two of those lakes have individual names. I added the names but JOSM complained. Of course, it wanted something more than just a name. I added water=natural to each of those two lakes and was able to upload them successfully. So now my lakes are tagged with natural=water twice, once on each of their outer ways and once in the relation. If the natural=water tag is removed from the relation, the simple lake doesn't render as water. Where is the proper place for the natural=water tag?

I fool around with the tagging every time I create one of these monsters. Just last week I created another multipolygon relation to hold a pair of calderas named "Twin Calderas", one of which contains a lake. I searched for it today and found it but another mapper had edited it in order to "fix old style multipolygon". I asked him in a changeset comment what exactly he had done to fix it and he replied, "The old-style multipolygon (with only type=multipolygon tag) with the two members on the left (one outer and one inner) was removed, the correctly tagged multipolygon was updated to also include the inner from the other multipolygon, because it also includes its outer." I'm reluctant to ask him to explain further because I'm clearly confused by his answer and indeed, by the entire concept.

I'll be following this thread closely to see if I can learn anything from it.

Dave

The Three Lakes relation is id:6,714,525
Twin Calderas relation is id:8,771,446

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 3:08 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:


sent from a phone

> On 7. Oct 2018, at 21:46, marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure it's necessary to create a value to repeat the type of
> object already present in osm. otherwise it would require a value for
> each type of object and a value for each type of possible combination
> between theose types.


what is “necessary” has to do with the use case someone has in mind, if you want to unambiguously map that there is a group of lakes with a common name for the group, it is indeed necessary to describe the thing with more tags than just a name.

Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag named group of named water areas?

dieterdreist
Am Mo., 8. Okt. 2018 um 11:49 Uhr schrieb Dave Swarthout <[hidden email]>:
So I retagged them this time assigning the name "Three Lakes" to the relation containing the lakes and removing it from the individual lakes. I checked back again today, after a few days had elapsed, and was able to seach for and find Three Lakes. But also today, when I was checking the area in order to use it as an example for my reponse to this thread, I noticed that two of those lakes have individual names. I added the names but JOSM complained. Of course, it wanted something more than just a name. I added water=natural to each of those two lakes and was able to upload them successfully. So now my lakes are tagged with natural=water twice, once on each of their outer ways and once in the relation. If the natural=water tag is removed from the relation, the simple lake doesn't render as water. Where is the proper place for the natural=water tag?


IMHO the natural=water should at the very minimum go on the individual ways representing the single lakes (or relations if the lakes are mapped as multipolygons).
For the group of lakes mapped as multipolygons, it seems natural that they do not inherit any water-properties any more, so if the name is referring to a group of lakes, this should be expressed explicitly, NOT by having simply lakes in a relation with type=multipolygon and name=* as the only tags (this would mean you don't know what this represents). An idea could be "natural=group_of_lakes" or "waterbodies", or "series_of_waterbodies", etc. Or you could add natural=water another time (it is not impossible to evaluate, but it is not what people expect to find I guess).


The fact that natural=water does not render on a way if the way is part of a multipolygon relation  (if I understand you correctly here: "If the natural=water tag is removed from the relation, the simple lake doesn't render as water.") seems to be an error (in osm2pgsql or the rendering style). but I  did not observe this so far. Also, if JOSM complains about a mapping style you consider valid, you should raise an issue (it is not completely rare, the Josm validator is sometimes a bit overeager and has a tendency to nanny its users).
 

I fool around with the tagging every time I create one of these monsters. Just last week I created another multipolygon relation to hold a pair of calderas named "Twin Calderas", one of which contains a lake. I searched for it today and found it but another mapper had edited it in order to "fix old style multipolygon". I asked him in a changeset comment what exactly he had done to fix it and he replied, "The old-style multipolygon (with only type=multipolygon tag) with the two members on the left (one outer and one inner) was removed, the correctly tagged multipolygon was updated to also include the inner from the other multipolygon, because it also includes its outer." I'm reluctant to ask him to explain further because I'm clearly confused by his answer and indeed, by the entire concept.


basically, the old style MPs had a magic way of interpreting both, the tags on the ways and on the relations, in a combined fashion. The new style MPs go for a cleaner and more transparent approach: tags apply to the objects to which they are attached. A tag on an outer way is for this way, a tag on a relation is for the relation (e.g. the area(s) with maybe holes, that a multipoligon relation represents).

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag named group of named water areas?

Christoph Hormann-2
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3

It is a good idea to keep in mind that we have a well established
tagging scheme for something quite similar, that is place=archipelago
and place=island.  This could serve you as a blueprint to select a
suitable tagging in your case.

Also keep in mind however that if you want to tag a name for a group of
lakes that needs to be verifiable - no matter what tagging you use.  
Most names for larger groups of lakes refer to a non-verifiable
geometry in the sense that is is not verifiable which lakes belong to
the group.  Examples:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecklenburgische_Seenplatte
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lausitzer_Seenland

Such features do not belong in OpenStreetMap.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag named group of named water areas?

dieterdreist
Am Mo., 8. Okt. 2018 um 12:24 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]>:

It is a good idea to keep in mind that we have a well established
tagging scheme for something quite similar, that is place=archipelago
and place=island.


+1, hence the proposal of a proper tag for a group of lakes.


 
Also keep in mind however that if you want to tag a name for a group of
lakes that needs to be verifiable - no matter what tagging you use. 
Most names for larger groups of lakes refer to a non-verifiable
geometry in the sense that is is not verifiable which lakes belong to
the group.  Examples:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecklenburgische_Seenplatte
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lausitzer_Seenland


these are not actually groups of lakes, they are names for geographic regions that also refer to lakes in their names (but cover more than just the water areas). They are like the black forest, which is not a forest, it is a geographic area where a lot of terrain is covered by forests and where the name refers to trees, but which also comprises other kinds of landuses and landcover.

Cheers,
Martin



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag named group of named water areas?

Christoph Hormann-2
On Monday 08 October 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> these are not actually groups of lakes, they are names for geographic
> regions that also refer to lakes in their names (but cover more than
> just the water areas). They are like the black forest, which is not a
> forest, it is a geographic area where a lot of terrain is covered by
> forests and where the name refers to trees, but which also comprises
> other kinds of landuses and landcover.

Well - you could also say 'The Canary Islands' is the name of a
geographic region and not an archipelago.  The point here is
verifiability of the geometry, not semantic nuances.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag named group of named water areas?

dieterdreist
Am Mo., 8. Okt. 2018 um 12:47 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]>:
Well - you could also say 'The Canary Islands' is the name of a
geographic region and not an archipelago.  The point here is
verifiability of the geometry, not semantic nuances.



When refering to place names, we should not generally reject the interpretation of semantic nuances, although they are only indicators, not hard factors. E.g. the example "Lausitzer Seenland" you mention, is explicitly not about lakes, it is about the terrain with lakes. Similarly the other example, "Mecklenburger Seenplatte" is also about a region and not about a group of lakes. I agree that bikeshedding semantic nuances does not always help an awful lot, for instance the Canary Islands are explicitly referring to the islands, but I would expect the name to apply to the sea between them as well (or according to the interpretation / context they might be included or not at the same time).

There are also cases where the same name refers to different entities (according to common interpretation), e.g.

For things as huge, it is clear there remains some ambiguity and uncertainty, but this should not hinder us from tagging the easy, simple cases with appropriate tags.

A very similar problem are parts of lakes by the way, e.g. look at this map of the lake of Constance, showing names for parts of the lake: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodensee#/media/File:Bodensee_satellit%2Btext.png
(or maybe the "lake" in this case is a group of lakes as well).

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag named group of named water areas?

dieterdreist


Am Mo., 8. Okt. 2018 um 13:12 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>:
A very similar problem are parts of lakes by the way, e.g. look at this map of the lake of Constance, showing names for parts of the lake: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodensee#/media/File:Bodensee_satellit%2Btext.png
(or maybe the "lake" in this case is a group of lakes as well).


The current solution in this case seems to use "natual=bay" tags: e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/74974

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag named group of named water areas?

AlaskaDave
Regarding the validity of the name Three Lakes, I think it's very clearly correct and as such, suitable for inclusion in OSM. There is a screenshot in my Dropbox and also this citation from the Dictionary of Alaska Place Names, Orth (1963):

Three Lakes: lakes, 4 mi. SW of Birch Creek
(locality), 30 mi. SW of Fort Yukon, Yukon
Flats; 66"13' N, 145"50f W; (map 119).
Local name obtained in 1956 by USGS.

from USGS Topo overlay

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 6:17 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:


Am Mo., 8. Okt. 2018 um 13:12 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>:
A very similar problem are parts of lakes by the way, e.g. look at this map of the lake of Constance, showing names for parts of the lake: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodensee#/media/File:Bodensee_satellit%2Btext.png
(or maybe the "lake" in this case is a group of lakes as well).


The current solution in this case seems to use "natual=bay" tags: e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/74974

Cheers,
Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag named group of named water areas?

SelfishSeahorse
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3
On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 18:08, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> - way with natural=water and name="Small Pond"
> - way with natural=water and name="Big Pond"
> - relation grouping this ways with name="Groble" and proper type
>
> But how relation should be tagged?
>
> Tagging it natural=water seems wrong to me - as result water areas would be tagged twice.
>
> But maybe it would be OK?
>
> If water is supposed to not be tagged twice - maybe use something like
> place=water_areas? But it seems not better to me.

What about a new type=group relation that would inherit the properties
of its members (as opposed to a type=multipolygon relation)?

Regards
Markus

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag named group of named water areas?

SelfishSeahorse
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 13:13, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> A very similar problem are parts of lakes by the way, e.g. look at this map of the lake of Constance, showing names for parts of the lake: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodensee#/media/File:Bodensee_satellit%2Btext.png
> (or maybe the "lake" in this case is a group of lakes as well).

This problem could be solved with *:part=* areas (in this example
natural:part=lake), analogous to building:part=*.

Regards
Markus

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag named group of named water areas?

dieterdreist


Am Mo., 8. Okt. 2018 um 13:57 Uhr schrieb SelfishSeahorse <[hidden email]>:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 13:13, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> A very similar problem are parts of lakes by the way, e.g. look at this map of the lake of Constance, showing names for parts of the lake: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodensee#/media/File:Bodensee_satellit%2Btext.png
> (or maybe the "lake" in this case is a group of lakes as well).

This problem could be solved with *:part=* areas (in this example
natural:part=lake), analogous to building:part=*.


I would prefer natural=lake:part

Cheers,
Martin


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag named group of named water areas?

Javier Sanchez
In reply to this post by AlaskaDave
I'm not arguing about any particular tagging, but I would like to point the fact that the map you send uses different colours for Three Lakes and for the named lakes (Chloya and Twin Islands lakes). The lakes have blue labels denoting that the name is for a water body while the group of lakes is in black typography. I think it means that the name of the group denotes the diffuse region where the lakes are placed.

Cheers, Javier

El lun., 8 oct. 2018 a las 12:29, Dave Swarthout (<[hidden email]>) escribió:
Regarding the validity of the name Three Lakes, I think it's very clearly correct and as such, suitable for inclusion in OSM. There is a screenshot in my Dropbox and also this citation from the Dictionary of Alaska Place Names, Orth (1963):

Three Lakes: lakes, 4 mi. SW of Birch Creek
(locality), 30 mi. SW of Fort Yukon, Yukon
Flats; 66"13' N, 145"50f W; (map 119).
Local name obtained in 1956 by USGS.

from USGS Topo overlay

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 6:17 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:


Am Mo., 8. Okt. 2018 um 13:12 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>:
A very similar problem are parts of lakes by the way, e.g. look at this map of the lake of Constance, showing names for parts of the lake: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodensee#/media/File:Bodensee_satellit%2Btext.png
(or maybe the "lake" in this case is a group of lakes as well).


The current solution in this case seems to use "natual=bay" tags: e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/74974

Cheers,
Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
1234