Nov 14, 2020, 12:34 by [email protected]: > > >> I am not sure which kind of "reduction" you are speaking about, if it could >> make the difference of a whole village being included or excluded I am sure >> that it is not an acceptable level of reduction/tolerance. I would rather >> see it the opposite way: not so unlikely that the official data has already >> been reduced compared to the (usually very precise "internal" official >> data), before publishing it as open data, and there might be some resulting >> details which could be seen as problematic on the micro level (e.g. if a >> road or a waterway is part of the area or not, or maybe is after the >> simplification half in half out, etc.) Also these areas will be delimited by >> other features (roads, fields, settlements, waterways, etc.), and ideally >> there boundaries in OSM should match with the representation of these things >> in OSM (this means more consistency as matching the exact same coordinates, >> which will be relating to official data. Hopefully these differences are >> small anyway, but a few meters can already make the difference whether a >> road or a stream is included or excluded, or is half in half out. >> > > I meant to manually simplify areas. But as you say, I think that's not > acceptable: we need to import those areas as they are in the shapefiles. We > are speaking about a official dataset that is constantly used in local > administration to decide anything (ie. if a house, road... is inside a > natural park or not and if requires, can be granted something...). > Substantial changes are unwanted. But note that some shapefiles have unneded extra nodes, I have seen simple rectangle building mapped with 1200 nodes where 4 would describe the same shape. Such simplification are desirable and should be done also here if needed and possible without any real data loss.
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
