Am 05/mar/2013 um 15:41 schrieb Jochen Topf <[email protected]>:
> We are also proposing to remove the huge natural=glacier multipolygon that
> covers large parts of Antarctica. It is quite unusual to tag the "default"
> land
> cover this way (there is no "desert" multipolygon covering half of North
> Africa
probably it would be there if there was more activity in Africa in OSM. Usually
we don't accept deletions because a feature is not yet mapped elsewhere. I am
opposing the idea to remove the "default" landcover.
> or "forest" multipolygon covering Siberia). The problem is that every time
> somebody adds some land cover information (for instance natural=rock for some
> places where there is no ice cap) it has to be added as inner ring to this
> huge
> multipolygon. Sooner or later this multipolygon will be too big to handle
> properly.
In this case we could then split the relation into smaller parts like we also
do with forests or other huge mp.
I generally like the idea to import data for the Antarctic and am not against
deleting very rough coastlines or other data there (with the intent to replace
it with more accurate data by import and with the old data coming from previous
imports), but you shouldn't delete "correct" mapping and you should pay
attention to the (maybe existing) manual refinements and mapping in the area
(I.e. keep it). It is a really huge region and while there might be a lot of
fun and none sense objects there might also be some treasures.
cheers,
Martin
_______________________________________________
Imports mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
