On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:37 AM, Igor Brejc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's fine if you look at OSM data from the presentation viewpoint > only. But what if sometime in the future somebody wanted to calculate > its surface area? ;)
Are you saying that if someone asks you to calculate the area of a national park, that they're expecting you to subtract the areas of any lakes, ponds, rivers within it? Different example, but you get the idea. The area of a housing estate includes the area of the buildings on it. If there is a forest with a lake in it and I get on a boat, have I left the forest? I'd say no (you are simultaneously in the forest and on the lake), but I can imagine people disagreeing with that. My point is that the question "What is the area of feature X" is too weakly defined to be basing our structure on the answer. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://svana.org/kleptog/ _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
