Nick Santos <[email protected]> writes: > I'd say if you think it's going to work, build it and show the community > examples of where it works well and where it doesn't. Discussing the > hypothetical makes us all revert to our own assumptions rather than looking > at a real comparison. I'm personally skeptical that a model will work very > well, because right now, land use tagging appears to fill in for when we're > missing more detail in the DB already, which suggests to me that to take > the more detailed data and try to infer the general case is something the > dataset isn't ready for except, maybe, in some areas.
Well said. I don't have the energy to continue to engage, but I was thinking this too. Don't just build it, but build it, take OSM and remove landuse tags and then-empty objects, generate the landuse polygons you think can be created "automatically", and difference them, and then for those that don't map, post a dataset and people can look at the differences. > But again, I'm not saying don't build it - just expect serious scrutiny of > its outputs. I also don't think the existence of a hypothetical better > method is a reason for others to stop doing it their own way, assuming both > result in acceptable data - OSM is a project of people adding the edits > they're willing and able to edit. The methodology is only of concern if the > result is bad, and I shared my opinion on that above. Agreed.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
