Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > They're both 'legal' boundaries. (and more).
Thank you, Kevin. Finally, this is written in a manner that allows me to understand it and I do now. Whew! THEN, there is how OSM might ultimately remedy this (by specifying — good example wiki diagrams can go miles here — mapping the "simple outer" with an "outer" role?) and how Carto (and its authors) remedy this as it renders. These remain to be seen. It's messy, but we do get closer talking about it here. It appears there are some forests which denote "legislative outer" with "outer" role and other forests which denote an outer role of land which is ACTUALLY federally owned (a smaller area, contained wholly inside of the first kind, the could-be-national-forest-without-more-legislation kind). OSM must specify correct / preferred tagging if we keep both kinds of multipolygons (MPs) in our data (I prefer the latter, as the tags in the polygon "do apply"). We may also coin a new flavor of MP (it would still BE a MP, but perhaps with special tagging, special rendering, or both) for such national forests in the USA to better characterize the "dual nature" of this odd "sort of" ownership: an "outer-outer" of "legislative possibility of ownership." But maybe that's not required: a wiki page describing this and the tagging required on one or two MPs could do it, I think. In my mind, now that these are quite distinct, it seems a straightforward solution is two MPs, maybe linked somehow (one a super-relation containing the other?). The first MP might be the (larger) "legislatively-defined outer-role possibly-owned 'limit without additional legislation.'" The second MP might be the (smaller) "actually owned, tagged outer-role, plus punched-out inner-role inholdings." Those quoted descriptions can be sharpened up, but I hope the idea is clear. Then, maybe some logic is built into Carto (maybe not, it may not be necessary). Then, we document this well in wiki (explaining as Kevin did, as I understand now clear-as-crystal, I believe others will, too). Then, we discuss whether there might be a harmonization of data across the country. Then (as usual, the final act, please pass the popcorn), we watch our hard work render. And applaud. With Kevin and Joseph talking, this feels like it can get solved! Thanks for putting on thinking caps and typing words carefully, SteveA _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
