On 26/03/2015 16:24, Richard Z. wrote:
has the rendering of the tidal areas been defined somehow?
No. tidal=yes is ignored.
how about underwater:natural=* and awash:natural=* ?
No doubt others will come up with alternatives. I will stand back and
wait for the usual suspects!
__
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 03:31:36PM +, Malcolm Herring wrote:
> On 26/03/2015 12:35, Richard Z. wrote:
> >How do people think about it? Should we generalise that approach
> >or seek another solutions?
>
> The way I have approached this is to map separate areas above and below the
> natural=coas
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 04:42:45PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Am 26.03.2015 um 13:35 schrieb Richard Z. :
> >
> > Current practice of having it end exactly on the shoreline
> > is both incorrect and a technical complication for mappers.
>
>
>
> I believe for mappers it is
> Am 26.03.2015 um 13:35 schrieb Richard Z. :
>
> Current practice of having it end exactly on the shoreline
> is both incorrect and a technical complication for mappers.
I believe for mappers it is the easiest solution, not a technical complication.
It is typically very difficult to find
On 26/03/2015 12:35, Richard Z. wrote:
How do people think about it? Should we generalise that approach
or seek another solutions?
The way I have approached this is to map separate areas above and below
the natural=coastline way & add the tag tidal=yes on the below HW area.
Should we use und
Hi,
it is mostly so that an area eg natural=bare_rock does not
end at the shoreline but extends some way under the water.
Current practice of having it end exactly on the shoreline
is both incorrect and a technical complication for mappers.
In many cases some of the underwater racks would be easy
