On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 5:45 PM stevea <[email protected]> wrote: > > A large thank-you to Kevin for that deeply informative post. > > > brad <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think its simpler and better to just create an inner boundary as was done with the Coconino NF > > The Coconio NF (relation/10956348) hasn't "an" inner boundary, it has hundreds of them. I'm not sure I understand what Brad is saying is "simpler and better" here, as a well-constructed multipolygon in OSM is "a well-constructed multipolygon in OSM." We already know how to do that so I don't think we want to develop something else to represent the same thing. > > Is Brad or Mike proposing something else, like two multipolygons to describe one national forest? One polygon for the administrative boundary of the NF which was established by Congress. Zero or more polygons describing limitations on access (no need for polygons to for access=yes, we can assume that in a NF generally), whether they be due to private ownership, or other reasons. The above are two separate concepts, so it is ok to have two separate OSM elements, in my opinion. A relation for all would be ok too, as long as the private inholdings are not removed from the NF (which I think has been done in some cases).
Mike
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
