On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 3:35 PM, stevea <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1: this is true for me as well, so I agree. Well, it is verifiable by > what our local government says (through the consensus of public process, > like City Council meetings) via polygons, AND by the more vaguely-defined > but still useful nodes, of which there are several in my city. This both > democratizes and harmonizes neighborhoods without making defining all of > them a free-for-all (in my city, anyway -- in yours, well, there are both > good and bad examples in OSM). > > For the former, I don't need a painted line on the ground, just what the > City GIS department publishes on the open Internet, after these > lines/polygons/neighborhood boundaries were reached by public process. For > the latter, these are fluid enough that they can come and go, move and > change name. Once again: OSM accommodates by storing, displaying > (uniquely!) and indexing both types of data. > > While this discussion is good, I don't think a "one polygon (or one node) > fits all" solution will work across the very wide diversity of > "neighborhoods" in the USA. Accordingly, let us allow some minor small > smears of syntax (multiple solutions) to capture multiple semantics. It > doesn't hurt anything, and nobody pretends there is a standard way to > "properly map" every single thing in OSM we wish to map, just high-quality > representations of things (which are all of captured in the database, > rendered, and indexable). Both polygons and nodes for neighborhoods do all > three of those, and sometimes a polygon is better than a node (or vice > versa), so I continue to believe using both is OK. > +1 -- Clifford OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
