Closed BertMule closed 6 months ago
I have difficulties seeing how this is an actionable request.
You seem to want us to render
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17539307
differently from other areas tagged natural=wetland
+ wetland=reedbed
because it is a dry reed-bed (by some definition of that term). But there is nothing in the tagging here that differentiates it from other reed-beds that would allow us to base a differentiated rendering on.
OK, of course it would need a different tag. Jokingly: natural=dryland + dryland=reedbed.
I am not aware that something like this exists, with the desired result.
Well - if no established tagging exists then this is not the right place to discuss the matter at this time. You should discuss tagging options with other mappers and work on establishing a tagging concept. Generally speaking reeds growing on not water saturated ground are probably partly mapped with natural=grassland
, partly with natural=scrub
, the latter in particular for perennial types of reed like giant reed.
Closing as this is not a matter for this issue tracker without an established tagging existing. This needs to be discussed on the mapping level.
I understand this is not rendering, but should go a level deeper first: tags. Followed by rendering.
The point is exactly that inappropriate tags like scrub, or maybe grass, are used.
I have been modelling DRY reed-beds, which are used for harvesting the reeds. These can be quite homogenous reed-beds, visually the same as wet ones, but explicitly dry. Paths or tracks may run through them. For instance: Rengerspole
I replaced inappropriate scrub by reedbed, but this is not what I want, because of the wet aspect.
It creates these problems.
As far a I know there no good alternative for reedbed. I considered at least these variations: wetland.
My proposal is to just leave the blue stripes out in a separate pattern.
I also mentioned this at the related non-transparent color.
Also see add color fill and rendering over water and over land.