On 11/09/19 15:47, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
11 Sep 2019, 01:54 by pla16...@gmail.com: On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 23:41, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com <mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote: Would it need a multipolygon? My impression of the ODA is an open patch of ground in / beside a residential area. If that is the case, wouldn't it be much simpler to just mark a new area in as landuse=o_d_a? (accept it wouldn't be abbreviated) Overlapping landuse often works, but only because the carto people juggle z-indexes to make it work. They're not overly happy doing that, I believe. well, reality is that sometimes area is actually both tree-covered area and for example university or residential area.
Trees are a land cover, not necessarily a land use. Universities and residential areas are a land use.
It also doesn't always work well: if ever you've put a pond in a wood without a multipolygon you get waterlogged trees. this is intentional to encourage correct mapping of tree-covered areas.
I wish there was more rendering that showed errors.
It also makes database queries somewhat more simpler if you're asking what is at point A and you get one answer rather than two answers, or one of two answers chosen at random. note that in many cases getting two answers correctly represents reality
Or even 3.. Land cover e.g sand Land use and e.g. quarry Land form e.g. dune
A multipolygon is a little more work for the mapper, but not much more. Now I expect both the carto and db people to tell me I'm wrong about that. If they do, I'll just point out that it's not wrong to use a multipolygon for this and in even more cases multipolygon should be used
Many people have problems with multipolygon relations..
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging