On 1 January 2013 16:10, Chris Hill <o...@raggedred.net> wrote: > On 01/01/13 11:15, Dudley Ibbett wrote: > >> I must admit I don't map land use if it is farmland. To me if it isn't >> mapped it is farmland. It would seem a reasonable default. >> > > +1 > > Smothering the countryside with landuse when it's farmland seems well over > the top to me. Marking a single field surrounded by urban or a village > setting seems a good idea, but just making everything in the countryside > that isn't woods, water, scrub, wetland, etc etc as farmland or fields > seems distracting.
I must disagree. Leaving an area unmapped leaves its nature completely unknown. You might as well say unmapped land in cities must be residential land so leave it unmapped, yet we map it because it is useful. It may seem obvious to somebody looking at a web map, panning around an area they know to be complete. But that isn't the only use of OpenStreetMap data, and we have no way of knowing whether an area is in fact complete. I have been making maps of "natural" spaces in London, and it is nice to show farmland (even if much of it is of dubious natural value). Should I be forced to compute the gaps in land cover, ignore strips between land uses and work out for myself where the farmland is, assuming that any area unmapped fits the description? Mapping it as farmland needn't distract anybody - it can remain unrendered, for example. Regards, Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
