Dave F. wrote:
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.
A lot of my own time when I do get to run some data in is pulling apart these
very 'matter of taste' mapping choices. The tools make it all to easy to
'default' to a macro mapping view, which may be fine in areas where there is no
data, but where we are now adding the fine detail, such as dropping in the
footpath down the side of a road, having to pull apart the field boundary first
reduces productivity?
This is an area where the simplistic approach to polygons does not help. If I
need to add the dry stone wall to one side of the field and fences or hedges to
the other boundaries then we end up with additional ways overlaying the base
polygon, and which are then even more difficult to see and manage? It is about
time we started to look at combining ways in the same way we currently do with
nodes?
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
