<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01/01/13 16:57, Tom Chance wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACD80NS3yWAcFgBtAG=qxNvRnFFs_hKM96EuSCFO4c1ySw5AQw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On 1 January 2013 16:10, Chris Hill <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:osm@raggedred.net" target="_blank">osm@raggedred.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On 01/01/13 11:15, Dudley Ibbett wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I must admit I don't map land use if it is farmland.
To me if it isn't mapped it is farmland. It would
seem a reasonable default.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
+1<br>
<br>
Smothering the countryside with landuse when it's farmland
seems well over the top to me. Marking a single field
surrounded by urban or a village setting seems a good
idea, but just making everything in the countryside that
isn't woods, water, scrub, wetland, etc etc as farmland or
fields seems distracting.</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">I must disagree. Leaving an area
unmapped leaves its nature completely unknown. You might as
well say unmapped land in cities must be residential land so
leave it unmapped, yet we map it because it is useful. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hardly. Cities cover a tiny proportion of the land of Britain, so
mapping the landuse in detail in cities makes sense.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACD80NS3yWAcFgBtAG=qxNvRnFFs_hKM96EuSCFO4c1ySw5AQw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">It may seem obvious to somebody looking
at a web map, panning around an area they know to be complete.
But that isn't the only use of OpenStreetMap data, and we have
no way of knowing whether an area is in fact complete. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hmmm. So we should just fill the space to say "It's done"? Adding
the (valuable) field boundaries shows the area has been touched and
the actual area of the fields are effectively shown without adding
the (IMHO) rather pointless field polygons.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACD80NS3yWAcFgBtAG=qxNvRnFFs_hKM96EuSCFO4c1ySw5AQw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<br>
I have been making maps of "natural" spaces in London, and it
is nice to show farmland (even if much of it is of dubious
natural value). Should I be forced to compute the gaps in land
cover, ignore strips between land uses and work out for myself
where the farmland is, assuming that any area unmapped fits
the description? <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
As I said above (you must have missed it) marking fields within
urban areas is a good idea as you been doing. The contrast with the
surroundings is valuable and is not smothering thousands of square
kilometres with pointless polygons that add no value. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACD80NS3yWAcFgBtAG=qxNvRnFFs_hKM96EuSCFO4c1ySw5AQw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<br>
Mapping it as farmland needn't distract anybody - it can
remain unrendered, for example.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
If fields did not get rendered then they would not show up as a
contrast in a urban areas and I'm not being led by the way stuff
renders - I have many different renders of my own, and some
specifically show fields, others do not. <br>
<br>
People will do as they please of course, I just think it's over the
top.<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly
</pre>
</body>
</html>