<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Aug 11, 2021, 22:15 by frederik@remote.org:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>There's a bunch of bubbly residential areas that nobody tracing from aerial imagery would classify as such. For example, why is <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/863679643">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/863679643</a> shaped the way it is and why does it have this little hole in the South? If that is the "official" data then maybe OSM is better off without it.<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">looking at Bing aerial it seems reasonable mapping and at level of average mapping.<br></div><div dir="auto">Worse than what experienced mapper would map, better than what a newbie would map.<br></div><div dir="auto">Personally I would consider it as OK and still improving map.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>Why do neighbouring large landuse polygons duplicate tens of thousands of nodes instead of being modelled as relations both sharing one way?<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">There are two parts:<br></div><div dir="auto">(1) node duplication: that is a problem that should be fixed, I wrote about it in<br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93033483">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93033483</a><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">(2) multipolygons are evil<br></div><div dir="auto">Why way duplication/lack of multipolygons would be a problem?<br></div><div dir="auto">Multipolygonised landuse is horrific to edit, even to experienced mappers<br></div><div dir="auto">and effectively blocks mapping by a new users<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Lack of unneeded multipolygons is a big plus, NOT a problem.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>Furher east, I find https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/685277039 which is an older forest that was simply overlaid with new data without any attempt at proper conflation.<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">that is a problem, commented in <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93150714">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93150714</a><br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>Where was that huge Rhode Island import even discussed?<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">this is also a problem (also asked in <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93033483" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93033483</a> )</div><div dir="auto"><br></div> </body>
</html>