Steve, Perhaps I am not understanding what you are saying, but:
1) Not all "inholdings" are completely surrounded by the National Forest, they are "bites" off the edge in some cases. I don't think one can have an inner ring and an outer ring which are at all coincident (they can't share an edge) and still have a valid multipolygon. 2) Holes (inner rings) are not part of the polygon. Thus if one did an analysis of (for example) a series of points, any points that fall in one of the holes would not register as being inside the multipolygon, even though they are inside the outer ring. Mike On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 6:39 PM stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote: > Continuing from my previous post, we even have an especially data-compact > (efficient) way of representing that: the member of the forest relation > which is an inholding (tagged with role inner) IS the polygon of, say, a > private residence "inside of" the forest. > > For example (I'm making this up), say we have a national forest with a > small shopping area (for food, supplies...) near its center for > convenience. I could see one polygon (tagged landuse=retail, name=ABC > Forest Shopping Center) both BEING exactly that, AND being included in the > (enclosing) forest multipolygon as a member tagged "inner." Voilà, > double-duty and done. > > SteveA
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
