Hi, On 11/19/2017 11:48 PM, Douglas Hembry wrote: > glebius believes that this approach (with the help of the reltoolbox > JOSM plugin) is easier and less error-prone than having multiple simple > closed ways (eg, a building footprint and an adjacent pedestrian area) > sharing a set of nodes on their adjacent boundary. . (I hope I'm > representing this accurately, glebius will correct me if I'm getting it > wrong).
He's not entirely wrong; this approach is something we have come to expect when you have a mesh of areas, like for example county administrative areas: One begins where the other ends, and allowing each to have its own "way" connecting the nodes would only increase the amount of data and complicate editing. However, when it comes to very small areas, like adjacent buildings or landuse areas that only share a handful of nodes, introducing a relation seems an unnecessary complexity. It is most often mappers with an IT background and an unwillingness, or even inability, to accept that there can be more than one way to do it right - they tend to follow the "everything is a multipolygon" approach. I've occasionally had to forcibly convince them to re-think that approach because they were essentially turning their home turf into a creative multipolygon landscape that nobody else dared edit. This is IMHO the foremost reason against this "multipoligonism" - you're making things harder to edit for others. (Another frequent hobby of multipolygon fans is combining several disjunct areas, say three landuse=farmland areas, into one multipolygon, because this "saves" space, since landuse=farmland then only needs to be tagged once not three times. IMHO this is only acceptable if the three areas have more in common than being farmland; for example if the three areas together share a local name or so.) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
