On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 09:50:21 -0700 Clifford Snow <cliff...@snowandsnow.us> wrote:
> 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 > Given that idea of tagging natural=bay as polygons is controversial I am not expecting this to be a good idea. Areas with completely undefined borders should not be stored in OSM. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
