Changeset: 33244185
Exmoor National Park boundary
Closed by roburite
Tags
build | 2.4-4-g37a0924 |
---|---|
created_by | Potlatch 2 |
version | 2.4 |
Discussion
-
Comment from trigpoint
Hi
Something appears to have gone wrong with this series of changes.
The national park relation is broken and some of the B3188 (North of Monksliver) is now missing.
What were you trying to achieve? Maybe we can help you.Cheers
Phil -
Comment from roburite
Well I was just trying to create the full, continuous, boundary of the NP from west to east. The stuff I can see on this page doesn't mean anything to me. Why are some entries crossed out? for instance!
-
Comment from trigpoint
It is not usual to create a single way for a large boundary such as Exmoor National Park, but rather to create a relation that combines ways that form the boundary such as roads, streams and the coast.
The crossed out items are things that were deleted by the changeset.
A section of the B3188 is missing where it formed part of the boundary.
I think it would be best if these changes are reverted as they are otherwise difficult to fix.
Is there any particular reason you needed a single boundary, that the relation did not do?
Phil
-
Comment from roburite
Well I couldn't find a way of showing the extent of the NP so I thought it needed a single boundary. I hadn't got round to doing the coast. If woodland (for example) can be shown as a block why not a national Park?
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
It should "show as a block" on OpenStreetMap-carto at some zoom levels (see the parks at http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=7/53.998/-2.098 for example), and at higher zoom levels to z9 there's a green background tinge. After that you get a name on the border, like http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/54.2322/-1.2253 . That's not working now because the relation is not complete: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/86909#map=10/51.1574/-3.6076
-
Comment from trigpoint
National Parks are larger than woods, they share boundaries with other objects.
Boundaries are mapped relations as this makes them easier to handle, can you imagine the problem if England was mapped as a.single.way? -
Comment from roburite
SomeoneElse said that NP should display at some zoom levels but it wasn't doing that. I thought I was doing the right thing to make it show up in that way.
So is it possible to turn this back ? My understanding now is that I would identify existing ways and add NP data/feature to them. -
Comment from trigpoint
It is possible , I will put it back at lunchtime and then we can see what the original problem was.
Phil
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
@trigpoint thanks.
@roburite One of the reasons why a "single way" isn't often used for large features such as a national park boundary is that OSM ways are limited to 2000 nodes, and it's easy to exceed that with even a small level of detail. There are "relationship checker" tools that can identify small gaps that might not be immediately humanly visible - we can use one of those to see what the problem is, and alternative renderings that can show if it's just a problem with one map style. If "something has gone a bit wrong" it's often easiest to undo the changes as a whole and then try and work forward from there rather than trying to fix things piecemeal - it's simply a quicker way to get to the destination.
-
Comment from trigpoint
I have reverted the series of changes and the National Park boundary relation appears to be complete.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/86909The changes were made in http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33419712
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
Thanks. It's rendering (as a green line) at http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/51.1181/-3.8639 . Does it need an area=yes as well or any other tags? Compare http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/86909#map=16/51.1104/-3.8569 with http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2176657#map=15/53.0966/-1.9545 (the Peak District, which displays at all zooms as expected).
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
For info the name shows up at http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/51.1585/-3.8956 . It's the green fill at z9 I'm wondering about. Need to wait for http://b.tile.openstreetmap.org/9/250/171.png/status to render before experimenting, though.
-
Comment from trigpoint
Area=yes added in http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33420684
-
Comment from roburite
Ok. I think I'll just leave it alone now.
Ways (1-20 of 35)
- 1
- 2
- 31713045, v3
- 31713047, v5
- 172274337, v4
- 122001005, v18
- Andrew's Hill (26150439), v6
- 218925626, v6
- 31712835, v11
- 172274337, v5
- River Exe (29277736), v12
- 333423675, v2
- B3224 (198092116), v3
- B3190 (31713816), v6
- 172274337, v6
- 333423675, v3
335574913, v4- 172274337, v7
- 333423675, v4
- B3188 (200845182), v2
- 200944895, v3
- 172274337, v8
Relations (3)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |