sent from a phone
> Il giorno 09 giu 2016, alle ore 18:41, Greg Troxel <g...@ir.bbn.com> ha > scritto: > > Perhaps there should be some more explicit tagging to denote > uncertainty. But drawing a polygon around the buildings that are part > of the settlement, and including areas that if a new building were built > there, it would be considered part of the settlement seems sensible. > This is logically well-defined, even if it's hard to answer in detail. +1, I don't know why the OP thinks that a polygon is not suitable for locality and hamlet, I believe it definitely is, and if the wiki says the opposite it should be corrected > > I can see an argument that a point is wrong, but really a point is a > different representation, showing not really the centroid but the > logical center of the settlement. +1 > > A line would be a polygon with no width but significant length, which > omits covering houses and has some new notion of near. So it's sort of > a blend of an area and the center, and that seems to raise more issues > and complexity than it helps. +1, to me a line makes no sense for representing an area (which any kind of settlement clearly is) cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
