Feb 12, 2020, 01:54 by pierz...@yahoo.fr:

> > > > pierz...@yahoo.fr
> > > If we could keep the wood landcover outside of OSM, it would greatly 
> > > simplify mapping of such areas and dramatically reduce the Mulipolygons 
> > > problems where huge multipolygons are created with inner for lakes and 
> > > all the problems related to this.
> On Feb 11  18 h 49 min 26 s UTC−5, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> >  ??? just do not create unreasonably large multipolygons (or split 
> >existing, 
> > possibly undo import if it makes area uneditable and do it right).
> Your answer seems to be that it is possible to map appropriately with the 
> current rules. Or maybe not, but anyway, let simply ignore these areas, not 
> find appropriate solution to add these areas  to OSM. For north of Canada 
> alone, > the superficy is closed to the size of Europe> .
I am pretty sure that it is possible to map forests in OSM. Can you link area 
where forests are somehow
not mappable and cause you to propose deleting tree coverage data from OSM?

You claimed that we should consider deleting tree coverage data from OSM and 
create a separate project
of it (what is mostly offtopic in this thread).

I responded that forests are mappable in OSM.
And poor data quality in an unspecific location is not a good reason to do 
something like that.

Why proposing solution for the problem would be ignoring it?

Hard to say more or verify without getting specific location but I cleaned up 
some places
mangled by badly done forest imports - for example border area that was hit 
with multiple
low quality imports.

But it sounds exactly like https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Abbe98/diary/28368
that was solved by splitting unreasonably large relation in parts (by deleting 
and remapping)

And yes Canada is large and we may never finish mapping forests. It does not 
mean that
we should delete all forest data.

We will also never finish mapping shops, opening hours and many other things.
talk mailing list

Reply via email to