On Friday 19 April 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > It is interesting that the idea that large size abstract concepts > > projected onto arbitrarily delineated parts of the physical > > geography by cultural convention like bays, peninsulas, linear > > rivers and plateaus might not be suitable for being recorded in OSM > > is by several people in this discussion reinterpreted as - and i am > > only slightly exaggerating here - that mappers may only record > > things after they have personally touched every centimeter of them. > > The fact that as many people 'reinterpreted' your words suggests that > it might behoove you to review them.
I do that all the time, usually also preemptively, which is why i tend to formulate carefully to avoid misunderstandings. In this case i think i have explained my idea clearly enough to Graeme - if not he is of course welcome to ask for further clarification. Being accused of being radically intolerant and other things kind of limits my interest in this discussion with you. I can see why you reject the idea there are things that should not be part of the OSM database despite them being part of the geographic reality as you see it and i also see why you have a general preference for representing these things in the OSM database with polygons. But i also see very good reasons why you should change your position on that - some of which i explained in my comments here. I could be wrong about this of course. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
