2009/10/7 Lester Caine <[email protected]>: > Mike Harris wrote: >> Chris >> >> Despite the well-argued views of a minority, I am persuaded by the equally >> well-argued views of the (considerable) majority who favour option (b). >> >> That is not to say that there isn't room for using a bit of common sense! I >> wouldn't divide up Delamere Forest into individual areas bounded by paths >> etc. - the paths in a sense form part of the forest landuse - but I would >> probably divide a residential area with, say, a major road going through it >> and would certainly divide landuse=farm either side of a road, for example, >> if I knew that it was a different farm on either side. > 'Peak district national park' for example needs a boundary, but there is > one hell of a lot of detail contained within ;) And as you say there is > no need to break large areas of landuse='farm' if there are many > footpaths and roads crossing it - BUT at some point it may be necessary > to be able to calculate the 'cultivatable area' and this needs the > detail to remove those areas of roads and the like. I think this is > where the a/b camp do not actually conflict, as long as the dimensions > of the roadways can be calculated from something. But at some point it > WILL be necessary to actually draw the 'cultivatable area' and then the > extra elements make life a lot easier than trying to extract width and > side area information from tags on the single roadway.
Judging by boundary data we now have available, the road way through national parks is allocated differently to the park it runs through, maybe because they are deemed public roads? _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
