>>> To pick a random example:
>>> http://osm.org/go/uG2Mh6iR
>>
>> Oops, sorry for spam, but nearby I spotted a convenient example of the
>> alternative approach: one way that serves as both administrative
>> boundary and river.
>
> Which was one of his points, what if the river isn't the boundary
line
> micro-mapping; I don't think micro-mapping is practical in a lot of cases
> right now.
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Erik G. Burrows
> wrote:
>
>> >> I have several cases where a border polygon (national park,
>> wilderness,
>> >> etc.)
>> What is the preferred way to handle this dual-purpose way?
>
> In some forms of rendering the boundary is rendered instead of the stream
> and
> the water feature disappears on the map.
> The preferred Australian solution is to not reuse the same boundary but to
> duplicate it. This allows all r
>> I have several cases where a border polygon (national park, wilderness,
>> etc.) is defined based on a natural feature, such as a
>> stream/crestline/etc.
>>
>> What is the preferred way to handle this dual-purpose way?
>>
>> Splitting the border way, creating a relation of the border pieces, an
I have several cases where a border polygon (national park, wilderness,
etc.) is defined based on a natural feature, such as a
stream/crestline/etc.
What is the preferred way to handle this dual-purpose way?
Splitting the border way, creating a relation of the border pieces, and
adding the natur
