Mapping Fields - preferred method I think is individual fields, or at
least polygons which are based on road or natural boundaries. Mea Culpa
- I have also mapped farmland as larger polygons.
Large polygons make life difficult when a field changes use - near where
I live it becomes scrub for several years before being developed for
housing/industrial/retail.
On 16/12/2019 10:21, Philip Barnes wrote:
On Monday, 16 December 2019, David Groom wrote:
------ Original Message ------
From: "Dave F via Talk-GB" <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 14/12/2019 15:54:13
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?
On 14/12/2019 15:19, Martin Wynne wrote:
Is this "farmland"?
http://85a.uk/haws_hill_960x600.jpg
I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland.
I concur with your frustration about 'huge multi polygons', especially when joined
to other features such as roads & rivers. I believe a few mappers were keen to
fill in the gaps rather than map accurately. Personally I think there should be one
polygon per field, but I admit that makes for a lot more work.
I see no benefit to mapping individual fields as separate polygons
tagged as farmland if adjacent fields are also farmland. Could you
explain why you think this is best?
David
Large polygons make future editing very difficult.
It is very beneficial to differentiate between arable, pasture and hopefully we
can get real meadow back from the misuse it has received.
Farming use changes, mapping individual fields allows farmland types or other
changes to be maintained far easier than if it is part of a huge polygon.
All in all it goes to make for a better more usable map.
Phil (trigpoint)
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
