<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 04/08/18 22:21, Paul Allen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPy1dO+GUFPzz=Po2qDFRAxGmzx8YQk-2_v91UNrwXZPdmk3cw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div dir="ltr">On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 8:09 AM, Warin <span
dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Presently landcover=clearing is fourth on the list of how
to map, with discouraging words attached.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That list doesn't read that way to me. It appears to
conflate two different things: a list of
increasingly-better approximations<br>
</div>
<div>to mapping an area with a clearing and a list of
increasingly worse tag use. Here's my first attempt at
clarifying it...<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Increasingly-better approximations:<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>1) Ignore the whole thing.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPy1dO+GUFPzz=Po2qDFRAxGmzx8YQk-2_v91UNrwXZPdmk3cw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2) Map the enclosing area (e.g., a wood) and ignore any
inner areas that are not a wood.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
If they landed on this page they are going to map it.. <br>
They want to map it, why else would they be here? <br>
Don't encourage them not to map, OSM looses data that way. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPy1dO+GUFPzz=Po2qDFRAxGmzx8YQk-2_v91UNrwXZPdmk3cw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>3) Map the enclosing area (e.g., a wood) and map inner
areas that are not a wood.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Increasingly better tagging for mapping inner areas
that are not like the outer area (case 3 above):<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>1) Use landuse=clearing. Very strongly discouraged,
although this is tagging that has been frequently used<br>
(quite possibly because the mapper did not know of a
better way of doing it). It doesn't render and clearing
isn't<br>
</div>
<div>usage of land but what covers the land.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>2) Use landcover=clearing. Strongly discouraged,
although this is tagging that has occasionally been used.
It<br>
</div>
<div>doesn't render. It is a slight improvement on
landuse=clearing because it describes, in a negative way,
what covers<br>
</div>
<div>the land.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
If something is not documented on the wiki . that should be fairly
strong discouragement? For example wood=clearing exists on the data
base .. but not on the wiki. <br>
I would not mention it on a page, hopefully it will disappear in the
data base. <br>
For the same reason I would not mention landuse=clearing nor any
other variation. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPy1dO+GUFPzz=Po2qDFRAxGmzx8YQk-2_v91UNrwXZPdmk3cw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>3) Use a multipolygon relation. The outer area (e.g.,
a wood) takes the outer role. The clearings are mapped as<br>
</div>
<div>areas with no other tagging (except notes, fixmes,
etc.) and take the inner role. This is correct way to
handle clearings<br>
</div>
<div>and has the benefit that it renders.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
The order I have given is a compromise. I want to give the better
mapping ones before landcover=clearing so they do see them. <br>
I want to give the simplest option first - map what is there - as
that is the easiest option. They will probably read this.<br>
If they cannot determine what is there than I give the next option -
map the surrounds. At this point they will probably stop reading :)<br>
If they have got this far then the most complex and best ... <br>
<br>
Then finally the last option and least desirable .. if they have
read this far they are persistent!<br>
<br>
If I have them in a room to speak to .. then I'd start with a
multipolygon! <br>
But in a document I try different methods, in a room I can see their
concentration and attentiveness. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPy1dO+GUFPzz=Po2qDFRAxGmzx8YQk-2_v91UNrwXZPdmk3cw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Note that it is fairly simple to convert existing
landuse=clearing and landcover=clearing into multipolygon
relationships<br>
</div>
<div>however, as always, automated edits are strongly
discouraged.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, well. When the landuse=clearing have crossing ways, touching
rings ... I have 'fixed' a few hundred of them so far .. still some
to go. <br>
Then the surrounding is confused with farmland and residential and
water .. the job of conversion is not so simple. <br>
<br>
If it were a blank slate not having anything but landuse=clearing
and the surrounding not touching anything else... just too easy. <br>
<br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>