On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 08:21:30AM +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote: > Hi all, > > > I am currently (armchair) mapping rural areas in Japan, that means realigning > nearly all > > existing ways. > > > Whenever I am mapping landuse=farmland areas I wonder whether I should > > 1) draw one rather large polygon stretching across all highway=track ways > and small buildings which are likely used by the farmer and waterway=ditch > ways or > 2) draw small polygons so that none of these objects is "covered". > > Obviously option 1) is easier and results in rather few landuse polygons > while 2) is > much more work and results in many typically nearly rectangular shapes.
I am not so religious about covering tracks in farmland. The point is that huge polygons tend to break much more often and tend to be much harder to modify/fix. I personally keep polygons small for that reason. Also there are much more fine grained tags for agricultural land e.g. meadow etc - Typically when you map farmland and do it right it does not grow that huge. You have small wooden strips, waterways with scrub around, roads etc. I typically even break up at field boundaries seen in differences in plant growths etc as thats typically the boundary for changes in usage in the future. Flo -- Florian Lohoff [email protected] We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
