On 1 January 2013 18:39, Chris Hill <[email protected]> wrote: > > As I said above (you must have missed it) marking fields within urban > areas is a good idea as you been doing. The contrast with the surroundings > is valuable and is not smothering thousands of square kilometres with > pointless polygons that add no value.
I hadn't missed that comment, in fact my work takes me up to the boundary of Greater London which includes quite a lot of green belt farmland so I have started to add that in. If I were to move to Shropshire I might equally be interested to look at the land uses in one of England's most rural counties, and I wouldn't want to assume that the presence of some fences meant all landuses except farmland had been mapped. I cannot understand why you would leap from the belief that "it is of no value to me" to the conclusion that "it is of no value to anybody". I also cannot understand comments such as Richard's, which arise every time somebody wants to add additional data that they consider valuable. Compared to the days of just mapping roads, many cities today are a dense mass of addressed buildings, metadata-to-the-eyeballs roads and every amenity known to man. Should we pity the poor sod who tries to edit that? One of the fun things about OpenStreetMap is seeing interesting uses others have made of data I would never have considered interesting. Regards, Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
