sent from a phone
> On 28. Apr 2019, at 14:46, Christoph Hormann <o...@imagico.de> wrote: > > the aim of this would need to be to allow limiting > the recorded information to exactly what can verifiably be said about a > feature, not to add more non-verifiable data to disguise the > non-verifiable nature of the whole thing. +1, a polygon is often not the right representation because the details are quite arbitrary (corner positions) in case of unclear borders > I have thought about this > quite a bit and came to the conclusion that the answer to this is > usually that using a node rarely misses any verifiable information that > cannot most efficiently be recorded in the form of tags or that is not > already recorded implicitly in the form of other features that are on > their own much better verifiable. what about several nodes, combined by a relation? They could have roles like is in or is out, and the processing software of the user could convert them to the geometry that suits (or drop them). As long as the nodes don’t get dragged very far it probably wouldn’t matter that they are moved. It could start with very few nodes and as people locally experience problems they could enhance the relations by adding another is inside or is outside node. For representing islands of “outside“ or several disjunct insides, there should maybe be an explicit grouping of these. Cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
