On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Begin Daniel <jfd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What is very cool with OSM is that you can edit the data. Urban polygon is > wrong? Modify it! The definition is obscure in the Wiki? Change it! But > yes, the learning curve is often steep, and you may need to discuss with > someone else… > "Just fix it" is not quite the answer. The point the original poster made, which I concur with, is that the very existence of these shapes makes working with the "important" data difficult. In terms of forest and land use polygons, every vertex I move there is a vertex I'm not going to move on something "important". (And the vertex density of the forests/land use are another reason that working around/with them is painful and energy-sapping.) As discussed in the other thread, the shear volume of Canada means I'm never in 1M years going to "fix" the forests. As it stands, I mostly ignore them. Too many vertexes to move, for too little net benefit, so there's forests running through the new subdivisions of Prince George. At least the roads are there and hopefully correctly named now. (I would, however, love to just delete the urban "land use" polygons, but who know if that's "allowed" or not. Absent a strong personality like the person who caused this thread, it seems like OSM is very much an "add only" project, since the social consequences of incorrectly deleting things seem so high. Nobody wants to be "that guy".) ATB, P > > *From:* Paul Ramsey [mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca] > *Sent:* Thursday, 1 September, 2016 11:17 > *To:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap > *Subject:* [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts > > > > I'm "glad" to see someone else w/ this issue. It's glancingly related to > the canvec import issue, since the land use polygons are a source of some > of the issues the reverter is complaining about (malformed multipolygons / > boundary overlaps). > > > > In my own work in my old home town of Prince George, I've constantly > wanted to just plain delete the "urban area" land use polygon (which > doesn't seem to correspond in any way to the actual urban area of the > present) and the forest polygons (which have the same problem). > > > > Unlike buildings and roads and water, land use is pretty sloppy: where > does the "urban area" end? Is this a "forest" or just a bunch of trees? > Since anyone making a real multi-scale map will fine some other source of > land-use (like classified landsat) and since people trying to map at > high-res are finding the forests add little value and much impedance, why > don't we ... burn down all the forests (and the urban areas too)? > > > > P > > > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Loïc Haméon <hame...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On a final note, though, I certainly would approve of any effort to reduce > the size of the upload chunks and the assorted polygons. For new mappers > like me, those create daunting challenges when trying to make incremental > improvements to an area. Shortly after joining the OSM community I was back > in my home town of Saint-Félicien, in a fairly remote region that hasn't > had tons of local mapping done. Some of the inhabited areas I aimed to > improve were covered by Canvec forest multipolygons, and I ended up giving > up on them until I could get some more experience as I absolutely did not > understand what the hell was going on.... >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
