Thanks Joost, that's really good to know. I'll continue as you suggest... Pete
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:57 AM, joost schouppe <joost.schou...@gmail.com> wrote: > I somehow missed looking at the main building wiki page, focusing on the > subarticles. As Blake rightly pointed out at the tagging list: > > "In addition outlines can either be simplified shapes or very detailed > outlines which conform accurately to the shape of the building. It is not > uncommon for buildings to initially be described as simple group outlines > later be improved with more detailed outlines and to be split into > individual properties." > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Buildings > > This seemed to be majority opinion at tagging too: it is OK to trace a > rough building outline. But preferably not because the mapper has no time > (in that case, just map the residential area), only if it is really hard to > tell where one building stops and the other starts. > > One reason to avoid as much as possible is that several data consumers > (optimistically) assume one building polygon means one actual building. > > _______________________________________________ > HOT mailing list > HOT@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot > > -- *Pete Masters* Missing Maps Project Coordinator +44 7921 781 518 missingmaps.org <http://www.missingmaps.org/> *@pedrito1414* <https://twitter.com/TheMissingMaps> *@theMissingMaps* <https://twitter.com/TheMissingMaps> *facebook.com/MissingMapsProject* <https://www.facebook.com/MissingMapsProject>
_______________________________________________ HOT mailing list HOT@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
