On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 06:52 +0000, Dudley Ibbett wrote: > Personally, it is good to see others adding field boundaries. > > I thought it might be useful to describe my current practice with > regard to mapping field boundaries. In making the following comments, > I would say that I am interested in landscape maintenance and > presevation and not just navigation. We have had to fight several > planning applications in our valley and have won theses based on the > quality of the landscape. Having good maps of this is important. OSM > could be useful tool in this context. > > I started mapping field boundaries as a Newbie (I'm not sure when you > stop being one) about 10 months back. At the time I made some > enquires on the Newbie mailing list about how to handle field > boundaries and roads. From this I concluded that you shouldn't join > field boundaries to roads. I also started mapping the field > boundaries along roads. The suggestion seemed to be that this should > be done for completeness. Drawing field boundaries along roads is > diffcult to do neatly and looks messy at high OSM zoom. However when > you scale back, the road rendering masks this. It is probably worth > going to more trouble where main roads are concerned and their line is > unlikely to be adjusted. In JOSM you can create a parallel way from > the road which can help. > I am increasingly thinking that in cases like this, we should begin to map roads as areas. I would leave the road way in the centre, but then around the road turn the parallel ways into an area and join those to the hedge way.
I think this will probably look better than hoping the renderer will get it right at all zoom levels. I appreciate that this should not be default mapping practice, but once you are into micromapping an area, then it does seem a logical step. What do others think? Phil _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
