> this is a topic discussed several times in precedence, you can find > discussions here and also on talk-de (your email suggests you understand > German).
I read the last discussion about "natural"/"mapping large areas" a little bit. Actually my preparation was mainly based on the missing content at the wiki. Seems to be as if I could start a some documentation of the discussions at the lists and other ideas. > Basically our data model is not very suited to tag large areas, > and these topographic areas tend to not have sharp borders, so they would > IMHO request a new datatype. A datatype for "blurry" large areas or just for blurry areas? Borders are also multipolygons and of the same size. So the size itself is not the problem - or is it indeed? > I might be a better idea to start a parallel project (e.g. with shapefiles > in a more adequate scale), e.g. starting with natural earths physical > dataset and adding translations and refinements. This dataset could be > crowdsourced and distributed in a license compatible with osm in order to > make them mixable. A parallel project, let's name it OpenGeoMap, would neccessarily require to merge the projects in a way that does not bother anybody. Regarding other natural tags like natural=desert etc and borders such a project would be a great idea. Regarding other data types it is not a benefit I would say, because keeping the data seperated would deny to relate them to each other. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
