On 9/1/2016 1:22 PM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
I'm not sure I agree. "Better than nothing" I guess is the principle,
but when what is there (not nothing) gets in the way of improving
other features, then it's not better than nothing. And what if what's
there is, from an information point of view, basically nothing?
Like the forests polygons that basically do nothing to delineate where
forests actually are (or residential polygons with same issue?) "Go
map all forests" is not actionable. Hell, even "clean up all forests
in just the area you care about" isn't. There's too much. So instead,
I leave demonstrably wrong "forests" in place.
In your example there I would have no issues with deleting that
"forest". Its boundaries do not agree with the boundaries of the real
forest, and the only reason there happens to really be forest in most of
it is because it's in a part of BC where that is true *everywhere*.
I've cleaned up bad CanVec data like that, and my first step would be to
delete it and start from scratch, so it's not like you are causing any
additional effort if someone decides to come along and map it properly.
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
