Am Di., 24. März 2020 um 05:25 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> "Here’s an example of a square in Berlin in a residential early 20th
> century area:"
>
> Is this mapped as a leisure=park in Openstreetmap? If so, then I don't
> see any need to also map the same area as a square.
>



Yes, it is mapped as park: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24638848
But as I tried to explain, the park does not cover the same area as the
square. This area is considered a square, so I do see benefit in describing
it as such in OSM.




>
> > I would still count them in, or we will end up splitting hair about how
> much of a square must be paved in order to be a square.
>
> Why is this a problem? When mapping areas with some trees, a mapper
> must decide how much of the ground is covered by tree canopy to make
> it a woodland (natural=wood) instead of a grassland savana
> (natural=grassland) or pasture with a few trees (landuse=meadow).
>
> Mappers always have to make decisions on border cases, and usually the
> decision will come down to "what is most of the area covered with?"



ok, but for square it is not clear/agreed whether the cover/paving should
be a criterion or not. This is somehow different to e.g. forest, where
there is generally agreement that trees are required.
>From my point of view, what speaks in favor is the configuration
(hardscape, surrounded by buildings, "cut out space"), but the fact they
are inside the barracks and not open to the public could also count for
seeing them as a different "main" thing.

Cheers:
Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Reply via email to