Feb 12, 2020, 00:07 by talk@openstreetmap.org:
> Feb 11, 15:59, stevea wrote :
>
> > Rather than get snarled in counter-examples, let's discuss how OTG isn't
> > and can't be strictly
> > followed in many cases. It IS followed in the majority of cases, but in
> > those corner cases where
> > it isn't, because it can't be ("nothing" is OTG), must be realistically
> > addressed, likely in our wiki
> > where we state the "rule" today, though going forward much better state a
> > "guideline". I think
> > we can get there, but it remains under discussion / construction.
>
> I agree with this and I adds some other aspects to take into account below.
> The areas not yet mapped in OSM have characteristics quite different than the
> industrialiased regions / countries. And we cannot realistically count on
> mappers to walk or cycle through huge isolated areas. We cannot expect people
> that figth to survive, that have no good internet connexion to map
> intensively there neighboorhood. And more then mappers, we need to think
> where we need to revise OSM.
>
Note that it is not violating OTG. OTG is not "everything must be mapped on
survey", it means
that direct survey (what is actually existing) overrides official data,
opinions and desires.
> If we could keep the wood landcover outside of OSM, it would greatly simplify
> mapping of such areas and dramatically reduce the Mulipolygons problems where
> huge multipolygons are created with inner for lakes and all the problems
> related to this.
>
??? just do not create unreasonably large multipolygons (or split existing,
possibly undo import
if it makes area uneditable and do it right).
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
