On 15/08/2016 08:39, Colin Smale wrote:
Hi,
I noticed a number of new admin boundaries have been tagged with
ref:hectares=* with the numeric value giving the area of the entity in
hectares. This feels to me like an inappropriate use of "ref" and also
redundant as the area can be calculated simply from the geometry
anyway. When I queried this with the mapper (user alexkemp) via a
changeset discussion [1] I got the following response:
"This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too be
able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest
in my mapping. -Alex Kemp"
Any thoughts about the tagging?
Any thoughts about engaging the user? There is also a discussion on
another one of his changesets where he unilaterally diverged from the
established tagging [2].
Colin
[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41449409
[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41371134
_____________________________________________
Regarding the 'ref:hectares' tag, it does seem wrong to me. It's not
consistent with other uses of the ref tag in OSM. Also, I agree that
tagging area values seems redundant, but perhaps doesn't do any harm in
this case. I do think at least, they should be retagged, perhaps to
area:ha or area:hectares?
Will
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
