2016-01-11 14:20 GMT+01:00 Dave Swarthout <[email protected]>: > Wow, that's pretty poor. I would never put my name on something like that. >
still it is not so untypical, you can find a lot of similar situations all over the globe, some years ago it was even worse (what at least lets me hope that some very patient people will fix these sooner or later). e.g. this one is in version 10: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/235112499 compare it to the aerial imagery to see how much you loose if you generalize the landuse and don't map individual fields: http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/#14/48.4641/8.8353&num=2&mt0=mapnik&mt1=bing-satellite The shape and size of fields is a quite interesting detail that tells a lot about the context, topography and history, while just denoting that "there is all fields" is relatively boring ;-) Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
