Agreed. If you have a property that is 20m x 100m = 2,000m², you could be adding, for example, 5m x 100m = 500m² to it by attaching it to the road, resulting in 2500m², i.e., a *25% increase in area*. A really big accuracy error, in my opinion.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Dave F. <dave...@madasafish.com> wrote: > On 20/02/2014 22:40, Frederik Ramm wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On 20.02.2014 23:04, Dave F. wrote: >> >>> There's a general consensus that attaching polygons to ways that >>> represent roads was a bad idea. >>> >> Not really. >> >> There is not a consensus but a ceasefire. Everyone is free to map this >> as they like, and to change it if there's a need - e.g. someone else has >> connected the field to the road, now you want to map the fence, so you >> need to split it apart. That's ok. Similarly, someone re-doing the whole >> area from better imagery or whatever has every right to map as he >> pleases - if they thing they can be more efficient by joining >> boundaries, more power to them. >> >> What is *not* ok is one person "cleaning up" after the other without >> actually adding any other improvement. >> >> I.e. if the other guy has connected the fields and the roads and you >> have been *only* pulling them apart without contributing anything else >> to the area in question, then you should have let them be; >> > > This bit I disagree with. Field or cemetery boundaries etc don't go to the > centreline of the road. "Pulling them apart" & placing them where they are > in reality is improving OSM by making it more accurate. Even if not > boundary is added. > > > > on the other >> hand, if the other guy has merged fields and roads that previously were >> separate, then they shouldn't have done that. >> >> This whole question is essentially a matter of taste, and you are >> allowed to map according to your taste, and discouraged from enforcing >> your taste for others. >> > > Disagree again, I'm afraid. Improving OSM's accuracy supersedes taste. > > To clarify I'm only referring to instances of polygons attached to roads. > Differing landuse areas abutting each other, fields to residential, for > example, is OK. However on saying that it does often make selecting a > polygon difficult if attached on all sides. > > > > Cheers > Dave F. > > --- > This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus > protection is active. > http://www.avast.com > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
