I see what you are saying here, and agree to a point, but in general, I don't agree with the implications.
If you look at the use cases -- 2 spring to mind: some people looking for somwhere to play football; somone out with a mobile device trying to work out where they are on a common (if they can use the football field as a frame of reference, they will know exactly where they are) In both these cases (and frankly in general) having it rendered would an advantage, and I can't really think of a disadvantage (orther than hastle in getting it done) other points being: we have the data, why isn't it getting rendered; while perminence is an argument of sorts, that's what updating the map is for, (a housing estate can become brownfield site with the aid of a bulldoser) So while i understand your point to some extent, I do think it's worth doing somthing about, even if it's not a huge priority :) JR 2009/11/9 Jonathan Bennett <[email protected]>: <snip> > On a more philosophical note, if the only difference between the pitch > and the surrounding common is that it's kept mown, there actually > *isn't* any real difference between the two. Should the man with the > mower stop, nature will reclaim the pitch very quickly. Is the pitch > really permanent? What *is* permanence? > > > > -- > Jonathan (Jonobennett) > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
