Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

Gleb, On 11/21/2017 12:02 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > Of course multipolygonizing couple of buildings that touch coastline in > Monterey was wrong. Sorry, I was in a multipolygonizing rage as I was > going through the coastline. :) We have a general (unwritten) convention in OSM and that is

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

Briefly (thanks for the reminder, again, Ian!): If the reltoolbox plug-in as as powerful as I am beginning to understand it may be (I appreciate the introduction, Gleb), and given my agreement that certain use cases (especially landuse) benefit greatly from multipolygonized boundaries (they

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 120, Issue 17

This thread is tedious, but I will soldier on. Gleb Smirnoff writes: > Looks like the acception of multipolygons here is not as bad as I initially > read in this email thread. So, we agree that at some level they are easier > to maintain that shared nodes. Do we? I cannot

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 6:15 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: > Please, ENTER data using shared ways where it makes sense to do so. Nobody > is saying "don't do that." ALSO, please be aware that existing > NON-multipolygon data (especially imports and other "curated"

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

Hi everybody! Please remember to stay on topic and friendly. This thread seems to be drifting off into a discussion about the merits of OSM editors. Also remember that long replies tend to result in people talking past one another. Short, sweet, and to the point helps a conversation stay on

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

On 20/11/2017 19:36, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: Come on, JOSM itself is difficult, but everyone who groked JOSM, never returns to Potlach. Untrue.  Each of the OSM editors has strengths and weaknesses - it's simply a case of finding the best tool for the job.  In some cases that might be JOSM; in

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

Kevin and others: please do not misunderstand me. There ARE times when shared ways between multipolygons is an elegant and THE correct solution, as you, I and many others have found to be true and edited into existence many times. By no means do I advocate that where such beauty has been

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

Kevin, On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 04:29:56PM -0500, Kevin Kenny wrote: K> (3) Ease of editing (for better-informed or better-tooled users). At K> least for me, working in JOSM, I find updating a mesh of multipolygons K> with shared ways to be fairly straightforward. Split the ways at any K> new

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 02:13:44PM -0800, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: O> Plug-ins that offer "power tools" beyond that? Well, caveat usor. Note that a large part of current JOSM base functionality before was in plugins. So, doesn't make sense to diminish some tool because it isn't in base.

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

Thank you, Kevin for your thoughtful and rather complete reply! Mark Wagner wrote: > Of course, this only works for ordinary relations. If the way you > clicked on is shared by two or more relations, you need to go > through the far more complicated method of playing with

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

I'm somewhat relieved to hear Gleb and Frederik injecting a voice indicating that 'shared ways' separating regions might be an acceptable approach, because I've adopted it myself. Well, to some extent, any way. I'm generally against sharing ways EXCEPT when topology demands it -as it often does.

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:43:34AM -0800, Mark Wagner wrote: M> > (I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to add a way to a M> > relation!) M> M> Select a way currently part of the relation. Shift-click on the way M> you want to add. Select "Update multipolygon" from the "Tools" menu, M>

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

On Nov 20, 2017, at 11:32 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > Hi Steve, > that was a long rant, I enjoyed reading it. Thank you, but I'd call it "moderate length" for me, I can and do (infamously) rant MUCH longer, as many will attest. > Your retelling of my > words is way better

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

A longer version (I'll try). I assume we all agree that overlapping or not reaching polygons where there is adjacency on the ground is wrong. So how can we properly express adjacency? The simple way is to run two polygons through the same subset of nodes. The advanced is to separate this

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

On 11/20/2017 2:36 PM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: In the simple way you need to follow all nodes your predessor had drawn, clicking all the nodes, be it 25 nodes or 100. In the advanced way, you don't. You instantly reuse his line for your new polygon. This was a most typical example of benefits that

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

Hi Steve, that was a long rant, I enjoyed reading it. Your retelling of my words is way better than my original text, which you could quote. I regret that I yet can't produce such a good text in English. That's why often for me it is easier to yield rather than argue and stand my position.

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:15:01 -0800 Evin Fairchild wrote: > (I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to add a way to a > relation!) Select a way currently part of the relation. Shift-click on the way you want to add. Select "Update multipolygon" from the "Tools"

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

On 20/11/2017 17:58, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: ... Glebius is right in my backyard and I've found his coastal "restructurings" (e.g. http://www.osm.org/changeset/46756097) to be bizarre and unnecessary, often overwriting correct official (county GIS imported) data simply to not "share some

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

Yeah, using multipolygons for everything is quite overkill, and it certainly does overcomplicate things, and not just for new users, but for experienced users as well. I mean, if it requires some plugin that I've never heard of in JOSM to easily edit it, then it's too complicated. I typically

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

I very much agree with Douglas and Rihards that glebius' mapping is (around here) unusual, "terrible" and difficult to parse, even for experienced mappers who have been mapping for most of the history of OSM, like me. Glebius is right in my backyard and I've found his coastal "restructurings"

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

Hi, On 11/19/2017 11:48 PM, Douglas Hembry wrote: > glebius believes that this approach (with the help of the reltoolbox > JOSM plugin) is easier and less error-prone than having multiple simple > closed ways (eg, a building footprint and an adjacent pedestrian area) > sharing a set of nodes

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

On 11/19/2017 5:48 PM, Douglas Hembry wrote: I told glebius that I wanted to find out what the community thought. Is this just one more valid optional way of mapping? To be recommended for adoption if possible? Or to be avoided? Thoughts? I have this situation locally where much of the