Forest footprints change over time but not that much in most places. The problem is that forest polygons can quickly end up with thousands of points and have the added complexity of holes.
There is value to having them in OSM, we just have to find a better way to do them, or live with "seams" at the edges of Canvec tiles. On Aug 25, 2016, 13:09 -0400, Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com>, wrote: > On 2016-08-25 04:53 AM, Adam Martin wrote: > > > > … The polygons will need to be either merged > > or redrawn to conform with the underlying land use. > > Or, dare I suggest, deleted completely. If they take a huge amount of > work to fix and they add little value by being based on elderly data, I > question their need to be in OSM. > > I know it's considered politically inexpedient to have huge blank areas > in your country's map: it gives ambitious neighbours expansionist ideas. > You can't find anything interesting in these polygons, and they don't > help you to find anything, either. Maybe we should just have the legend > “hic sunt sciuri”* every few square kilometres instead? > > cheers, > Stewart > > *: “here be squirrels” > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
