On 21/11/17 14:29, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
Steve,
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 04:34:18PM -0800, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
O> If the reltoolbox plug-in as as powerful as I am beginning to understand it
may be (I appreciate the introduction, Gleb), and given my agreement that certain
use cases (especially landuse) benefit greatly from multipolygonized boundaries
(they do), I actually CAN imagine that the SCCGIS V4 landuse import data (in 2019
or 2020) could become multipolygon. This likely would involve a pre-upload
translation of polygon data into mulitipolygon using the tool, then conflation
(which has to be done anyway). Except, we upload multipolygons as we delete
existing polygons during the conflation-and-upload phase.
O>
O> I wanted to offer that bright spot of hope to anybody's lingering beliefs that I am
"mule-entrenched" in my beliefs that existing polygons are always superior. They are not.
They make updates harder, but I think I can get over that, as I can be convinced that "once done,
the time investment is worth it" for the future benefits that multipolygons bring.
Okay, I will withhold myself from touching polygons in the Santa Cruz County
for next couple of years, and let's see how your future experience with
SCCGIS goes on. We can get back to this question later in scope of Santa Cruz.
Meanwhile, do I understand that my initial understanding of strong consensus
against multipolygons in the USA overall was wrong reading? First few emails
in the thread made me think so.
I'd like to continue working on coastline, and map all remaining SMRs and
later maintain them. I also want keep using multipolygons in any regular
edits. Are there any objections?
I use multipolygons extensively for the land cover around Rocky Mountain
National Park.
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
