On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com > wrote:
> I agree that a rough polygon seems better than a node because it allows to > estimate the size (a new relation datatype would even be better, like a > collection of (existing/already mapped) things inside (role) and outside > (role) that would serve the same purpose but make it clear that it is only > an estimate / that there aren't clear borders anyway). > > I don't like boundary=informal though. It should be something more verbose > regarding what kind of region this is (natural/geographic, (low) mountain > range, area of lakes, forest, desert, plains, cultural, ethnographic, wine, > etc.) > A while back one of the conversations on the mailing list was about adding neighborhood boundaries. There was a lot of concern that many neighborhood boundaries are not clearly define which would result in boundary disputes. How is adding a rough boundary for an informal area any different? Worse, if we start adding informal boundaries I can see someone wanting to add the Cascadia [1] (Independance Movement) boundary. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_%28independence_movement%29 Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
