oseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > 2) Many hedges which were mapped like areas are currently missing > `area=yes` tags. In this comment > ( > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3844#issuecomment-582692389 > ) > you can see that over 90% of the `barrier=hedge` closed ways in a > Dutch province (random example) are missing `area=yes`, though they > appear to be mapping the outline/area of the hedge. This means that a > rendering solution that relies on `area=yes` would miss a large > percentage of hedges mapped in this way. The situation is worse for > barrier=wall.
Zeeland is a bad example, and absolute numbers are low. Not wise to base decisions on that. Please check Noord-Brabant, Zuid-Holland, Utrecht. Nederland as a whole did not have any problem with the wiki-conform rendering, but it does have a huge problem with the current rendering which does not conform to the wiki. If mappers do not conform to the wiki documentation, the tagging is the error, and it is a good thing that that is visible, so mappers will correct the mapping. I agree that tagging could have been better defined. I am not against simpler/cleaner/better tagging, if it helps renderers. The first thing to do is to get the problem clear so that mappers can agree to find a better solution. Then discuss solutions, including a change path. E.g. if a solution would be to tag hedge areas as natural=hedge or landcover=hedge, then the change path would be for the renderer to temporarily render the old AND the new tagging, so mappers can edit the old tagging to the new tagging. Then set an end of support date for the old tagging. Would that be so hard? > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
