Michal, You're half right IMO. I don't see such problems if 1) tagging is made by hunters 2) mapping is made by hunters
Yves On 24.10.2016 16:01, Michał Brzozowski wrote:
I, for one, think that hunting areas don't really belong to OSM. Or at least benefits are outweighed by problems. Firstly they may or may not be associated with OSM features. In the latter case, there's no guarantee that someone who edits a forest would understand it and not merge it with other forest (Not to mention inconsistency of treating ponds/lakes in forests as either cutting a hole or not). Also, there may or may not be any on-the-ground markings. If there are none, there should be an official database to which one can refer, in which case there's no point in duplicating it in OSM. The legal details vary around the world and we have seen that both mapping legal state and implementing very elaborate tagging (here it'd be: who, when, what, how) have not been successful. Not to mention any hunter who needs this data would rather go to official sources and not trust a map that anyone can edit. Obviously, we map legal state sometimes (like for routing), but this is mostly pragmatic and secondary to the feature. Here the legal state is a feature in itself. Michał _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
